ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Minister of State was asked—

Exeter Airport

Hugo Swire: What recent assessment the Secretary of State has made of the adequacy of road links to Exeter airport; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Clark: First, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of the House? The Ministers in the Department for Transport look forward to working with you on the business.
	On 6 May, the Department gave outline investment approval for £12 million towards the east of Exeter phase 2 improvements. Measures include improving the junction access to Exeter airport. This investment was agreed after assessing the transport conditions in the immediate and wider area, and reflecting proposed development opportunities.

Hugo Swire: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Improving road connections to the airport is all very well, but, given the Government's stated commitment to a high-speed rail network and the desire of the airport to become carbon-neutral by 2015, what additional resources can the Government make available to local councils to ensure a reduction in carbon emissions and congestion resulting from airport traffic?

Paul Clark: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Department for Transport's overriding goals are to deal with congestion and with climate change. We have imposed strict rules in relation to climate change, and they are monitored independently. The work that needs to be done at local level to ensure joined-up thinking on business and housing development and on transport requirements is part of the regional funding allocations process. We have more than doubled the money that is going into local transport provision.

Adrian Sanders: The Minister ought also to consider the road network to the west of Exeter, as well as the way in which Exeter airport serves the south Devon economy and the need for investment in road infrastructure—most notably the A380 Kingskerswell bypass.

Paul Clark: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is always a need to look across a region to examine demand, the economy, proposed developments and the transport infrastructure. We know the importance of having a good transport infrastructure, be it for people travelling to and from work, for businesses moving their goods or for people visiting those businesses' headquarters in order to trade. That is why the Department has been undertaking processes to give powers and responsibilities to regions and local areas so that they can prioritise their requirements within a given region.

Cross-Border Transport Networks

Gordon Banks: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues in the devolved Administrations on cross-border improvements to transport networks.

Sadiq Khan: My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Transport met Stewart Stevenson MSP and John Swinney MSP in April to discuss progress on the Department's work on High Speed 2 and its potential benefits for Scotland. The Secretary of State has also given evidence to the Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee and met Committee members to discuss various matters. Additionally, Ministers in the Department have met Ieuan Wyn Jones AM to discuss Welsh cross-border rail and road issues.

Gordon Banks: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your new duties?
	I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. The economic success of devolution is largely dependent on efficient cross-UK transport links. He mentioned that there have been discussions with the Scottish Executive about High Speed 2 and the prospect of a London to Scotland high-speed line, but will he do everything that he can to ensure that this turns into reality and to ensure that devolution brings economic success to Scotland?

Sadiq Khan: I thank my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. High Speed 2 will report to the Government by the end of this year. We have said to the Scottish Government that the High Speed 2 company would be happy to meet them at any point, and we have also recommended that they have a representative on the relevant reference group. We believe in investment, in these challenging times, but we also recognise the benefits of a proposed route that goes all the way to Scotland, rather than stopping in Manchester, as some people have proposed.

Mark Pritchard: Is the Minister aware of the sardine express? It is the Arriva Trains Wales service that goes from Wales to Shropshire, then on to other parts of the United Kingdom. My concern is that people are being crushed into its carriages, because there are often only two carriages when four are required to meet the demand on the line. If there were a sudden halt or accident, far more people would be injured or, possibly, killed as a result of that congestion in the carriages. Will the Minister undertake to meet representatives of Arriva Trains Wales and get an undertaking from them that they will take action to deal with this, as it has been going on for far too long?

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, the question went on for rather too long as well; questions must be briefer.

Sadiq Khan: The one thing I do not apologise for is longer trains; we need them. The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about the quality of service that passengers receive, which is not good enough on some trains. I am happy to arrange the meeting he mentioned and it would be good if he were present so that he could express and articulate the concerns that his constituents have put to him.

Eric Martlew: You, Mr. Speaker, will be aware that there is no greater enthusiast for the high-speed line than myself. As the line passes through my Carlisle constituency on the way to Scotland, will the funding be a Scottish or a UK responsibility? The line starts in London and in Glasgow and meets somewhere in the middle.

Sadiq Khan: I thank my hon. Friend for his really helpful question. He will be aware that the Department for Transport is responsible for cross-border franchise train services, and that we work closely with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive. The important thing is to ensure that the quality of service that passengers receive is the right one. It is also important to have proper communications between Members on both sides of the border. There are examples of good practice, but also, I am afraid, of bad practice, but I will endeavour to ensure that we learn the lessons so that the quality of service that passengers receive is seamless.

Violence Against Public Transport Staff

John Robertson: What representations he has received on reducing levels of violence against public transport staff; and if he will make a statement.

Sadiq Khan: I deplore violence against staff. Both my father and father-in-law worked in public transport for more than 40 years, so I well understand the huge impact of physical or verbal violence on working people and their families. If we are to run an effective transport system, it is essential that staff feel safe when carrying out their duties. That is why we are continuing to work with key stakeholders to improve the personal security of transport staff as well as passengers.

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, but does he agree that overcrowding and lack of supervision are part of the problem, particularly on the railways, and that we need longer trains, less overcrowding and more supervisory staff so that the staff themselves can feel safer?

Sadiq Khan: One thing we did in respect of the most recent franchise we awarded was to take the passenger experience into account. We spoke to passengers and asked them what they wanted. The issues my hon. Friend has just raised were the same issues that they raised: they wanted less crowding and they wanted to feel safer on the stations, and that has an impact on both staff and passengers. In awarding this most recent franchise, we took on board some of the passengers' wishes. I will ensure that we continue to speak not just to Members of Parliament, but to communities, so that when we award franchises, we can take into account the important points that my hon. Friend has raised.

Richard Ottaway: The Minister will be well aware of the slight downward trend in transport crime, so will he acknowledge that the Mayor of London's ban on alcohol on the London underground was a contributory factor? Will the Minister also consider that as the recession starts to bite and unemployment starts to rise, that trend may well be reversed?

Sadiq Khan: It pains me to do so, but I congratulate the Mayor of London on the alcohol ban. We supported him in doing that and helped with the necessary byelaws to make it work. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that crime has gone down not just on the railways, but on the tube system as well, largely as a result of the investment in more British Transport police and more police and community support officers on the tube as well. The danger is, of course, that with some parties recommending cuts, that could mean cutting those police and PCSOs, which I think would have the impact of making crime go up again.

Louise Ellman: What support can my right hon. Friend offer to the British Transport police in its work on protecting passengers in normal times as well as in its counter-terrorism work?

Sadiq Khan: In my new role, I am looking forward to working with my hon. Friend in her Select Committee role. She raises a very important issue. As we know, there are record numbers working for the British Transport police and more than 3,000 community support officers. Bearing in mind London and the other potential strategic targets, she is right about the importance of the British Transport police working with the security services. I reassure my hon. Friend that my noble Friend the Secretary of State is committed, as we are in the House of Commons, to ensuring that we have the best possible and safest transport system in the world.

Lifeline Flights

Alistair Carmichael: What recent representations he has received on the future of lifeline flights within the UK; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Clark: The Department has received little correspondence on existing lifeline services in Scotland and Wales. There have been calls to introduce public service obligations on some domestic routes to London, although no formal applications have been received. Our policy on this subject is set out in the published guidance of 2005.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful for that answer, but in my constituency, which has genuine lifeline routes, there is growing concern about the increasing cost and the decreasing quality of service provided to local people since Flybe took over the franchise. Is he prepared to set up a meeting, perhaps including his opposite number in the Scottish Government and local representatives, to see how the Minister's regulatory functions and the Scottish Government's funding obligations might all be brought together to ensure that the people who need the services most get the best quality service?

Paul Clark: Let me make it clear that we continue to support the use of public service obligations as a means of helping to subsidise important lifeline services for communities such as that represented by the hon. Gentleman. Some of the issues to which he refers will be partly subject to a commercial decision-making process, but we will continue to consider how to ensure that people in such communities have lifeline services.

Angus MacNeil: Lifeline services are important, and my constituents also have Flybe as the sole operator from airports within the islands to airports in central Scotland. However, anyone who books with Flybe and changes their travel plans with advance notice will not get a refund. Does the Minister not think that travellers and consumers deserve a better deal?

Paul Clark: Indeed. The Government have been committed to ensuring that passengers get a fair deal, whether on rail, buses or aircraft. Clearly, that is part of the reason for considering introducing a role for Passenger Focus with regard to airline passengers. Within the provisions that we have, we will do all that we can to ensure that passengers get the best deal. As the hon. Gentleman understands, these are commercial matters in many cases, but I undertake to consider the issues raised.

Norman Baker: I am pleased that the Minister supports lifeline flights, but he must recognise that the cost to the passenger of some essential flights is excessive, often because there is a monopoly supplier—there is no alternative. In contrast, bargain basement prices are offered on destinations where there is competition with rail. Does he not see merit in the Lib Dem idea of a cap on the cost of essential flights from monopoly suppliers, with a surcharge on those flights that compete directly with rail, both to encourage modal shift and to help to fund high-speed rail?

Paul Clark: The hon. Gentleman well knows the Government's commitment, not only in policies and words in the Chamber, but in deeds and investment in high-speed rail, and in our continuing work on issues, some of which have been raised, such as improving overcrowding with additional rolling stock. Whereas the Lib Dems see a bottomless pit of taxpayer's money to fund schemes that are not in balance, we will do what is required to ensure a balanced transport position, and to ensure that lifeline services continue.

Julian Brazier: Mr. Speaker, may I welcome you to your new post?
	Does the Minister accept that lifeline flights require healthy regional airports? Between higher taxes, new charges for spectrum, and now an imposed blank cheque for security costs, does he see a future for regional airports?

Paul Clark: In our aviation White Paper, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, we are clear that regional airports have an important role to play in supporting individuals and businesses and giving people freedom and choice. We shall support that position.

Rail Services (London/South Wales)

Alun Michael: What steps he is taking to improve rail services between London and south Wales.

Sadiq Khan: We are taking a number of steps. From 2016, passengers will benefit from new super-express trains, which will reduce typical journey times and add more seats between London and south Wales. In addition, we are considering the case for electrifying the busiest parts of the Great Western main line, which appears promising. Meanwhile, the performance of existing train services between London and south Wales has improved since we issued a remedial plan notice to First Great Western last year.

Alun Michael: May I take this opportunity to welcome you, Mr. Speaker, to the Chair, and the Minister to his new responsibilities?
	When we travel by train to areas north of London, those of us who have constituencies in south Wales are quite jealous when we see the improvements that have been made on many services over the past 10 years. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to accelerate immediate improvements in the services to Cardiff and Swansea, as well as considering electrification of the line in the longer term, and perhaps a late-night service that would allow his constituents to enjoy the benefits of Cardiff's night-time culture?

Sadiq Khan: I am not sure whether that is an invitation for a date. I accept that the train service between London and south Wales has for a long time suffered poorer performance than other First Great Western routes. I also accept my right hon. Friend's point about the experience of those who live north of London. Our analysis is assessing a range of electrification scenarios, including taking the wires to Bristol and as far as Swansea, which I know will please him.

Hywel Williams: May I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and also support the points made by my friend from the Welsh Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael)? Cardiff is one of the busiest hubs in the entire system, yet the Wales rail group has been told that approach speeds are 15 mph, which is what they have been for many decades. When the line is improved, will the Minister ensure that the signalling system into Cardiff is also improved so that speeds can increase?

Sadiq Khan: That is an important point. Not only do we need to ensure that there is a new generation of super-express trains, we need to ensure that signalling improves as well. One of the things that I hope the hon. Gentleman will see over the next period is, with continued investment, an improvement in the quality of services that he and his constituents receive.

Si�n James: May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister to his new post? As chairman of the all-party group on rail in Wales, I am concerned about the number of services to south Wales and Wales in general. Our particular current concerns are about preserving rail services at ports and docks in constituencies such as mine, Swansea, East. Will the Minister meet the group to discuss those matters?

Sadiq Khan: The short answer is yes. It is important that colleagues continue to raise the concerns that those of us who do not travel to certain parts of the kingdom do not get to see. It is important that we meet people such as my hon. Friend to listen to their concerns and to ensure that the franchises address those issues.

Stephen Hammond: May I congratulate you on your election, Mr. Speaker, and welcome the new ministerial team?
	The Minister will be aware that the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), told the House repeatedly that electrification to south-west and south Wales was a priority for the Government and that they would improve services. As the Prime Minister was shown yesterday, the Government are planning to cut capital expenditure after 2010. How can electrification to improve services remain a priority for the Government in the face of those capital expenditure cuts after 2010?

Sadiq Khan: May I thoroughly disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who is a friend and a neighbouring MP? We are examining in detail the case for electrifying the diesel-operated inter-city linesthe Great Western main line, which I mentioned, and also the midland main line. We will make an announcement in the coming months that will demonstrate that in challenging and tough times we are willing to invest rather than make cuts.

David Drew: May I welcome you to your new role, Mr. Speaker, and congratulate the Minister on his new post? The Stroud valley line is the reserve line from south Wales, from the Severn tunnel. There is no better way to improve those services than to redouble the line between Swindon and Kemble. Will the Minister ensure that that happens as a matter of extreme urgency?

Sadiq Khan: There is some good news on the redoubling of the line. My hon. Friend will be as aware as I am of the challenges in that area and will know that in these difficult times we have committed to investment rather than cuts, which have been recommended by some people.

Motorway Congestion

David Heathcoat-Amory: What recent discussions the Secretary of State has had with police forces on levels of motorway congestion following traffic accidents.

Chris Mole: May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State has had no recent discussions with police forces specifically on motorway congestion? The Highways Agency takes managing the motorway network seriously. In the event of a serious accident, the police are supported by traffic officers to ensure that delays are minimised and motorways are reopened promptly.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Minister mentions serious accidents, but is he aware that after quite minor accidents, the police are inclined to regard the accident as a scene of crime and to cordon off long sections of motorway, causing immense tailbacks, frustration, economic loss, and motorists trying to find alternatives through small towns and along small roads? Will he have a word with the Highways Agency and the police? It is a particular problem at the Bristol end of the M5 during a busy holiday period, when the motorway is already congested. There must be a better way of dealing with those accidents, such as photographing them, getting the vehicles off the scene and getting the traffic moving.

Chris Mole: The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I spoke to the chief executive of the Highways Agency about the matter yesterday. He informed me that a joint strategic agreement on traffic incident management has been in existence since 2006, and that one of its aims is to improve clear-up times. The police must take as long as it takes to deal with what may be a crime scene, but the Highways Agency has helped them with technology that can rapidly determine and record evidence such as the position of vehicles. As I said earlier, following the completion of police work, traffic officers take over to ensure that the motorway is open as soon as possible.

Clive Betts: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and hope that I shall catch your eye on many future occasions.
	I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that one of the most congested parts of the motorway network is the M1 south of Sheffield, where a large number of accidents occur. Steps are being taken to widen the M1 between junctions 25 and 28, and consideration is being given to either widening it or introducing hard-shoulder running up to junction 34. Will my hon. Friend assure me that whatever scheme is adopted, variable speed limits will be introduced on that section of the motorway so that we can reduce congestion, ensure smoother running at peak periods and, in particular, lower the high levels of pollution around Tinsley, in my constituency?

Chris Mole: As my hon. Friend says, the combination of hard-shoulder running and the application of active traffic management is an important tool, enabling us to squeeze every drop of capacity out of our existing road infrastructure.

Greg Knight: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
	With the advent of new technology, more use is being made of electronic signs on motorways, especially mobile electronic signs. Why are they not deployed at motorway access points? Is the Minister aware that most of the congestion that follows an accident is caused by new traffic entering a motorway that drivers do not know is shut?

Chris Mole: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the button. Technology of that kind is used increasingly throughout the motorway network to enable us to manage vehicles as effectively as possible, especially when incidents arise.

Theresa Villiers: I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and the new ministerial team.
	What is the Minister's estimate of the cost to the United Kingdom economy of an hour's closure of a stretch of a key motorway such as the M25 or the M62?

Chris Mole: We know that closure imposes costs. That is why we want to respond to incidents as effectively as we can. I have already set out the approach taken by the Highways Agency, in conjunction with the police, to ensure that roads are opened as quickly as possible.

Theresa Villiers: The Government have no comprehension of the huge cost impact of these closures. They have broken their promises on congestion again and again. In their entire term of office they have built less than 20 miles of new motorway, and they have a road maintenance backlog of 13 years. Have they not manifestly failed motorists in this country?

Chris Mole: That was a somewhat surprising response from Her Majesty's official Opposition, who once told us to vote blue and go green. It is clear that that is no longer their commitment if they talk of a massive investment in motorway building and give no indication of how they would resource it. We are investing in the nation's infrastructure, and they clearly would not do so.

Tom Watson: Should the police clear congestion using British-assembled vehicles? Can my hon. Friend confirm or deny the rumour that there is currently a British-assembled Mini awaiting allocation in the ministerial car pool? Will he show leadership and volunteer to use it, and will he cut through the petty bureaucracy that allows

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we shall have to leave it there.

Chris Mole: It is clearly for the Highways Agency and/or the police to ensure that they obtain best value for the taxpayer when purchasing vehicles. However, if my hon. Friend has any new information that he wishes to share with me, I shall be happy to meet him to discuss it.

A14 (Kettering)

Philip Hollobone: When the Highways Agency plans to initiate (a) ramp metering at junctions with, and (b) public consultation on the widening of, the A14 around Kettering.

Chris Mole: It is proposed that ramp metering will be delivered on the A14 at junctions 4, 7 and 8 by spring 2011. A public information exhibition on the proposed widening of the A14 around Kettering is planned for autumn 2009. This replaces a public consultation on options as there is only one viable scheme option in this case.

Philip Hollobone: The Highways Agency proposal is to widen the A14 between junctions 7 and 9, which is badly needed and very welcome. May I urge the Minister to ask the Highways Agency to investigate why it cannot widen the A14 between junctions 9 and 10, because under the Government housing expansion proposals, most of the new houses in Kettering are to be built to the east of the town, for which junction 10 is very important?

Chris Mole: The Government are committed to the three-lane widening in order to deliver the improved traffic flows more quickly to the A14 around Kettering, as that can be done within existing Highways Agency land. The planned improvements are based on the needs of Kettering in terms of growth and development, and as I know that the hon. Gentleman has been calling for just this sort of infrastructure investment for some time, I am sure he will welcome it wholeheartedly.

Community Rail Projects (East Midlands)

David Taylor: What recent assessment has been made of the viability of community rail projects in the east midlands; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Mole: Community rail projects bring together local communities and the appropriate train operators. We do not expect any issues with the viability of the three main projects in the east midlands.

David Taylor: The rail renaissance since 1997 has led to peacetime record numbers of passengers, which demand some attention on the constraints on capacity. Will the Minister discuss with me the Connecting Communities report from the Association of Train Operating Companies of earlier this month, which identifies the Leicester to Burton linethe national forest line through North-West Leicestershireas having a good benefit-to-cost ratio? Might we have a look at that on site in order to correct the earlier impressions of Lord Adonis, who was rather lukewarm about community rail in the east midlands?

Chris Mole: I am, of course, happy to speak to my hon. Friend about the scheme, but it is primarily a scheme of regional significance, and therefore the capital cost of the national forest line would need to be funded through the regional funding allocation. Unfortunately, the east midlands region has not seen this project as a regional priority for funding through that route, but any initial subsidy would have to be funded by local authorities for at least the first three years, although the Government would consider taking the service into normal franchise arrangements once there was a sound business case.

Graham Stuart: May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker?
	Does the Minister think that a community rail project could further improve the long-term viability of a reopened Beverley to York rail line, and will he accept an invitation from local campaigners for the reopening of that line to come to our area to hear the arguments in favour of it and the benefits it would bring?

Chris Mole: As part of our general commitment to the development of the railways, we are always keen to hear of proposals, but the Government have made significant funds available through the regional funding allocation schemes, which are essentially a regional concern, and proposals do need to be prioritised through those mechanisms to ensure that they genuinely have the support of people in regions such as that which the hon. Gentleman represents.

Peter Soulsby: May I ask the Minister to look again at the ATOC report to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) referred, and to recognise the powerful case it makes for the Leicester to Burton line? That is one of a number of similar schemes throughout the country that are not only of local significance, but also potentially of considerable national benefit. I ask him to look again at this, and to recognise that national benefit and also the need for Government investment to achieve that benefit.

Chris Mole: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have looked at the ATOC publication, Connecting Communities, which came out this month. It looked at the opportunity to provide better transport connections for communities that have grown in recent years, but which do not necessarily have good access to the rail network, including connections on the national forest line.

Street Works

Nicholas Winterton: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the implementation of permit schemes for street works; and if he will make a statement.

Sadiq Khan: The permit scheme regulations were made on 28 November 2007, and came into force on 1 April 2008. No permit schemes to control works on the highway are currently in place. We have undertaken to report to Parliament on the evaluation of the first implemented permit schemes, following their first year of operation. We hope to make a decision on an application from Kent county council for permit scheme powers within the next month.

Nicholas Winterton: The street works permit schemes were designed, as the Minister knows, to make utilities companies carry out work at the same time, in order to reduce congestion for the motorist, inconvenience to the pedestrian and loss of earnings for retail outlets. Since the scheme came into force on 1 April 2008, as he said, how many permits have been granted, and have they been successful?

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard my answer: none have been granted. Local authorities recognise the additional powers that they have and we hope to make a decision on Kent next month [ Interruption. ] I hear some chuntering from the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) on the Front Bench. If she wishes to speak to me afterwards, I can give her a response that is not a chunter.

Topical Questions

Edward Timpson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Sadiq Khan: With permission, Mr. Speaker, as this is the first of what I hope will be many Transport questions, I wish to outline briefly the priorities of the Department for Transport. The new ministerial team is committed to making progress on three main priorities. First, we want to provide extra capacity on our transport networks on a sustainable basis, to meet increased demand. Secondly, we want to move quickly, and for good, to low-carbon technologies and practices within each mode of transport. Thirdly, we want to improve the attractiveness of public transport by making it possible to make door-to-door journeys more easily, in whole or in part, by that means.

Edward Timpson: The Minister may be aware that the Office of Rail Regulation has failed to find funding for the regeneration or rebuilding of Crewe station in this funding cycle. Although some basic alterations have recently been made, they fall woefully short of what is necessary for the proper functioning of this major interchange of which the town should be proud. Can he undertake to ask the Secretary of State to look at enabling those long overdue improvements?

Sadiq Khan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the interest he shows in the regeneration of that important part of the country. The Crewe railway gateway scheme was confirmed as a regional priority for investment in February. The Department's officials are ready to discuss with Cheshire the way forward on this scheme once the major scheme business case has been submitted. Either the Secretary of State or I will write to the hon. Gentleman to give him an update, and perhaps he can be involved in the process too.

Natascha Engel: The Secretary of State, who could be called the Minister for bicycling, knows of the massive increase in the number of people choosing to cycle to work. Given the increase in the number of cyclists on roads that are already congested, what are the Government doing to ensure cyclists' safety and to encourage more people to get on their bikes?

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and we need to ensure that more people cycle and are safe while doing so. She will pleased to learn that an announcement will be made when our carbon reduction strategy is unveiled next month, and I think she will be very pleased with some of the things the strategy says.

Alistair Carmichael: The shipping Minister is, I know, aware that late last year the Maritime Coastguard Agency was involved in, and approved, the design of bulkers for the transportation of waste meat products from the abattoir on Orkney for disposal on the Scottish mainland. Despite that expensive effort, Northlink ferries this week refused to carry the products because of the escape of a small number of maggots on to the car deck. That refusal threatens the future of meat production on Orkney, which is an agricultural community. Can the Minister assure me that the MCA will not allow itself to be used in this way, as that poses a real threat to the future economic viability of our community?

Paul Clark: The Maritime and Coastguard Agency's role is to act for the safety of ships and their crew and passengers. Equally, it has a responsibility under health and safety regulations for cargo of animal by-products that are liable to leak. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that last autumn discussions were held and a route through was found, which involved improvements to the containers. I understand that there has been an issue recently with maggots escaping from the trailer, and that there are one or two other issues. We will certainly ensure that the MCA is not used, and that it carries out its duties properly. We will look further into the matter.

David Clelland: I wonder whether Ministers have yet had the opportunity to speak to their counterparts in Holyrood about the importance of the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh to communities on both sides of the border, not least given its appalling safety record. Does the Minister agree that the regional funding allocation system is totally inadequate to deal with the urgent need to upgrade that road? Will he enter into discussions about bringing about a definitive plan to finance and implement urgently the dualling of the road from Newcastle to Edinburgh?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do need briefer questions from now on.

Sadiq Khan: The requirements for being categorised as a road of national importance are based on the amount and type of traffic flow on the road, and take into consideration whether traffic is redirected on to other routes. The case for the A1 north of Newcastle is not robust enough for us to consider re-categorisation, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter, because I know it is of real concern to his constituents.

Robert Key: Turning to strategic rail links in the south-west, Lord Adonis told me a few weeks ago that after the Axminster loop is completed, he will reconsider the question of dualling the track between Salisbury and Exeter on the Waterloo to Exeter route. Can the Minister confirm that that is going to happen?

Chris Mole: I can confirm that that is actively being investigated.

Mark Lazarowicz: There are growing concerns about both the service to passengers on the east coast main line and the future of the franchise. I have written to the Secretary of State to request a meeting to discuss those concernswill my right hon. Friend arrange such a meeting as soon as possible?

Sadiq Khan: I have with me the letter that my hon. Friend wrote to the Secretary of State, who is happy to meet him to discuss the concerns he has raised. I know they are concerns not just to him but to his constituents, and I will ensure that the meeting will, hopefully, alleviate some of the concerns he has raised.

Angela Watkinson: The cost of installing and procuring a speed camera is 40,000 plus the ongoing maintenance costs, compared with only 7,000 for a vehicle-activated speed sign. Has a proper cost-benefit analysis been done of those two methods of road safety control, and will the Minister have discussions with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to extol the opportunities to save money while maintaining road safety standards?

Paul Clark: We take every opportunity to take the steps necessary to ensure that our roads are as safe as possible for all users, and that we use everything available to us. I am delighted to tell the House that the road casualty statistics for 2008, announced today, show that the number of deaths has fallen by 14 per cent. Although that figure is now down to just 2,500, we cannot be complacent and we need to take every step possible to ensure that the roads continue to be safe, and to meet our goal of having the safest roads in the world.

Rosie Cooper: May I, too, welcome you to your role, Mr. Speaker? I am delighted to see you there.
	Northern Rail, which serves my constituents, faces a 34 per cent. increase in passenger numbersto 84 millionsince being given a contract based on a steady state in 2004. Does the Minister agree that there is a pressing need for new rolling stock, because otherwise everybody will be standing on those journeys?

Chris Mole: The Department is very much aware of the pressures that passengers face on some northern train services. We hope that at some stage in the near future, we can relieve some of those pressures.

Philip Hollobone: The Department's 2008 road transport forecasts predict a one-third increase in vehicle traffic by 2025. How much of that is driven by unacceptably high levels of immigration, and how on earth is this country going to cope?

Sadiq Khan: I have seen lots of tenuous causal links, although not one involving immigration, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the decisions taken by the Government mean that 6 billion will be invested in our roads that would not have been available had the Conservatives been in power.

Madeleine Moon: Two disabled constituents of mine have faced difficulty when travelling by air. One has pulmonary hypertension and was charged extra for oxygen on the flight. The other is a man with Parkinson's. Despite having assisted travel, he faced humiliating three-hour waits at Heathrow airport without access to a toilet, food, water or assistance. That cannot be acceptable: what steps can Ministers take to make sure that the airlines appreciate their responsibility for disabled passengers?

Paul Clark: At the outset, let me say that I am appalled at the examples given by my hon. Friend, which I should be more than happy to discuss with her. The provision of oxygen, whether free or for a charge, is clearly a matter for the airline operators, and I recommend that people look at their websites to see what is available before they travel. The key UK airlines provide oxygen free of charge, but I am looking forward to next week's debate in Westminster Hall.

Nicholas Winterton: The Government will be aware that many country areas have huge difficulty maintaining their roads and lanes. The maintenance backlog is massive, not least because of the heavy vehicles that use the lanes. What are the Government going to do to help local authorities in rural areas maintain country lanes and roads to a proper standard?

Paul Clark: The investment going to the regions through local transport plans and other funding streams has more than doubled in the past 10 years. It is for local authorities to target that money appropriately, but rural roads are central to the new road safety strategy that is currently out to consultation. We want to focus on finding engineering and other solutions to improve safety on rural roads.

WOMEN AND EQUALITY

The Minister for Women and Equality was asked

Gender Pay Gap

Andrew Selous: On what criteria her most recent estimate of the gender pay gap in the (a) public and (b) private sector is based.

David Amess: On what criteria her most recent estimate of the gender pay gap in the (a) public and (b) private sector is based.

Vera Baird: The criteria used for estimating the gender pay gap are the same for the public and private sectors. The estimate uses data published by the Office for National Statistics that show that the median hourly gender pay gap for all workers, both full and part-time, is 28.3 per cent. in the private sector and 22 per cent. in the public sector.

Andrew Selous: I am concerned that the Government continue to set such a poor example with their own staff. The  Financial Times has obtained unpublished figures from the ONS showing gender pay gaps within the same grade of 12.5 per cent. in the Ministry of Defence and 19.5 per cent. in the Met Office. Can the Government not do better with their own staff?

Vera Baird: I served with the hon. Gentleman on the Work and Pensions Committee and I know that he cares about low pay, but he needs to change his party urgently. The Tories voted against the Equality Bill on Second Reading, even though it will bring in help regarding unequal pay on a gender basis. Moreover, they have just voted in Committee against business even being asked to disclose pay figures that would make the pay gap transparent, and thus exert pressure on firms to press for equality for women. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is a siren voice, and a lone one, from the Tory Benches. I am very glad to say that this afternoon the BBC will publish pay figures for its top 100 executives

Mr. Speaker: Order. We need to move on, Minister. I would like to move now to David Amess.

David Amess: The Minister is simply not answering the question. She has not gone into any detail about the criteria involved, and I should have thought that the Government would have more influence on pay disparity in the public sector. Will she accept my party's suggestion that every secondary school in the country should have a dedicated and professional careers adviser?

Vera Baird: Another forlorn and futile gesture from the Tory party. We will make progress in the public sector through the Equality Bill and the regulations on disclosure that it will put in place, which the hon. Gentleman's party voted against. In Committee, his party has systematically voted against all the provisions that would help to improve equal pay in both the public and private sectorsa particular pity, since poverty academics are now clear that the most important step to eliminate child poverty is to bring in equal pay for women, but clearly the Tories do not care about that either.

Fiona Mactaggart: But is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the largest pay gap in Britain is in the financial services sector, where full-time women are paid 55 per cent. less than full-time men, and part-timers 39 per cent. less? As we own many of the banks responsible for that poor pay, what can the Government do?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend is right. The reason she is able to quote those figures is that the Government asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission to look into the appalling pay inequity in that sector and make recommendations for the way forward. Let me assure her that when we get the Equality Bill through Committee, despite the best efforts of the Tories to block it, there will be an impact in that sector, too.

Anne Begg: I think we have just heard a quick claim from the Opposition to put up the pay of public sector workers. In areas such as mine in Aberdeen, men generally work in the private sector in the oil and gas industries with very high wages, while women work in the public sector for much lower wages. That is why we have a gender pay gap whereby women earn only two thirds of what men earn.

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend again makes clear how little concern there is among the Opposition about equal pay for women. We will make an analysis this very afternoon of the BBC's top 100 executive salaries to see where the gender pay gap is there. Transparency is hugely importantit is a pity the Tories do not understand that.

Mark Harper: The hon. and learned Lady really knows better than that. She knows perfectly well that in Committee, we made it very clear that we recognise there is a real problem. The argument is over the solutions. The Office for National Statistics made it clear that the gender pay gap is 12.8 per cent. The Government's proposals in clause 73 of the Equality Bill, which we opposed because we think they will not analyse the problem, will tackle only direct and indirect discrimination. How much of the 12.8 per cent. pay gap does the Minister think is accounted for by direct and indirect discrimination? The Equal Opportunities Commission research suggests less than 5 per cent.

Vera Baird: The pay gap is 28.3 per cent. in the private sector and 22 per cent. in the public sector. The Tory figures leave out part-time workers. The Tories do that all the time, clearly thinking that part-time workers are a separate breed of second-class citizens, as they are mostly women. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) made a long speech in Committee asserting that discrimination was a very minor reason for unequal pay, which is not what most trade unionists and others in the field believe. Even he did not say there was no discriminatory unequal pay, yet the Tories voted against the very measure that would tackle it.

Lynne Featherstone: Although we disagree on mandatory and voluntary pay audits, if we are to have voluntary pay gender information and it has not worked by 2013because the matrix has not worked or whateverwhat threshold will the Minister be looking at to determine whether the scheme has not worked? What percentage of companies will need to have voluntarily displayed at that point?

Vera Baird: That is a really good question. As the hon. Lady knows, the commission, the TUC, the CBI and other employer and employee organisations will be working on what we should measure. They will also report annually on how the work is progressing. Part of their consideration now will be exactly how we should measure that progress.

Female Entrepreneurs

Henry Bellingham: What plans she has to increase the number of female entrepreneurs.

Maria Eagle: The Government recognise the vital contribution that women entrepreneurs are making in building our economy. Women-led businesses contribute 45 billion to the UK economy. Women can get advice and support through the Business Link network. In addition, we are funding a network of women's enterprise ambassadors to inspire more women to start their own business, and piloting women's business centres that provide specific business advice.

Henry Bellingham: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that many female entrepreneurs employ agency workers? Such workers very often enjoy their flexibility and, indeed, are well paid. They are very concerned about the EU agency workers directive, so can the Minister confirm that the Government are still broadly sceptical about the directive and that they will ensure proper and full consultation?

Maria Eagle: I commend the hon. Gentleman for the particular interest he has shown in this matter over a number of months. He is right that consultation on the directive is ongoingit closes on 31 July. Those who wish to have an input into our response may do so in Exeter, Birmingham, Glasgow and London over the next month or so. We intend to ensure that flexibility still remains for agency workers while protecting their rights, which is another important consideration.

Lindsay Hoyle: I think my hon. Friend would agree that a lot of people are forced into becoming an agency worker. It was clear that the people who lost their jobs at the Mini factory in Oxfordshire had no rights and no way of defending themselves, and the reason why they could be sacked overnight was that they were forced into agency working. The fact is that that is not a way forward or a solution that we should support.

Maria Eagle: I agree that some people do not choose to be agency workers but have that chosen for them. The directive and our policy are driven by a desire to ensure not only flexibility but fairness. Protection in employment is just as important as flexibility. The trick is to get the balance right, and we intend to do that.

Age Discrimination

Jo Swinson: What recent representations she has received on age discrimination against under 18-year-olds.

Michael Jabez Foster: We recently received representations on age discrimination against children aged under 18 from organisations including Young Equals, 11 Million, the Association of School and College Leaders and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We have also discussed the issue with children's groups, including at the Government Equalities Office senior stakeholder group, and the Equality and Diversity Forum.

Jo Swinson: I am glad that the Minister mentions Young Equals and I am sure he has read its excellent report, Making the case, which details harmful age discrimination against young people, so how can the Government justify ignoring that evidence and excluding under-18s from protections in the Equality Bill? [Official Report, 29 June 2009, Vol. 495, c. 1-2MC.]

Michael Jabez Foster: We all agree that young people deserve the best possible start in life, but the most appropriate and effective way to deliver better opportunities and services for our young people is through targeted initiatives, which is why, in January, we announced an extra 350,000 apprenticeship places, half of which we expect to go to 16 to 18-year-olds. It is also why we are investing 225 million over three years to support local communities. We need to support vulnerable young people who become homeless. Such targeted initiatives will have the greatest effect for the benefit of young people.

Julie Morgan: The Equality Bill is a great piece of legislation, but it would be even better if under-18s were included. The Young Equals campaign has been mentioned, and young people are saying powerfully that they feel discriminated against and excluded. Is there any way in which we can make them feel part of the Bill?

Michael Jabez Foster: As my hon. Friend suggests, most of the arguments in favour of extending age provisions to under-18s seem to arise due to negative attitudes and opinions about young people and mistrust of them. It is important that that be dealt with, but attitudes alone are not the basis of discrimination under the Bill, so we would not solve the problem simply by including under-18s in its measures.

Equality Bill

Hugo Swire: What recent representations she has received on the provisions of the Equality Bill affecting provision of goods and services on the basis of age.

Vera Baird: We recently received representations on the Equality Bill's provisions on age discrimination from Age Concern, Help the Aged, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Association of British Insurers, Saga and Kingfisher. We have held extensive discussions with a wide range of stakeholders to inform our work on a consultation document to be issued shortly.

Hugo Swire: A number of my constituents who are pensioners are either regularly refused insurance, or obliged to pay larger premiums because of their age. Given that the Bill is intended to go against any form of discrimination, including age discrimination, will the Minister give an assessment of how existing legislation is working regarding insurance for elderly people?

Vera Baird: Of course, there is not a ban on age discrimination in the delivery of goods, facilities and services at present. The new Bill will be fed by the consultation. If discrimination is actuarially justified, it will not be age discriminationit will operate on a different basis. At the moment, there is no need for any supplier to decide whether there is justification, but now they will have to make such decisions. The consultation document will come out very shortly, and it will help us to sculpt this so that we get all the bad things out and put all the good things in. I hope the hon. Gentleman will contribute to that document.

Gender Pay Gap

David Taylor: What recent discussions she has had on the extent of the gender pay gap for those in full-time and part-time work.

Michael Jabez Foster: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer previously given.

David Taylor: I am grateful for that answer. Does my hon. Friend agree with the chief executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who has said that the Equal Pay Act 1970 is
	no longer fit for purpose,
	and does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look afresh at what modern equal pay legislation should look like? We should head off problems in the first instance, and not wait until they reach tribunal stage.

Michael Jabez Foster: Indeed, and that is why the Equality Bill will ensure that provisions are made to monitor equal pay and make a difference for the future.

Equality Bill

Angela Watkinson: What representations she has received on the provisions in the Equality Bill on provision of goods and services on the basis of age.

Michael Jabez Foster: I refer the hon. Lady to the response given earlier today.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the Minister for that answer, but it is not only older people who are encompassed in the problem. Very young drivers are a high-risk group, and the insurance industry needs assurances that it will be able to undertake proper risk assessment and make sure that its insurance premiums reflect that additional risk.

Michael Jabez Foster: It is clear that there is discrimination against older people in particular, but of course, before any regulations are made, the industry will be properly consulted; that, indeed, is the purpose of the Government's proposals.

National Security Strategy

Crispin Blunt: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on updates to the national security strategy, including policy on cybersecurity.

David Hanson: At 10 o'clock this morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a written ministerial statement, in which he laid before the House this year's update to the national security strategy. Accompanying the strategy was the first national cybersecurity strategy for the United Kingdom. Last week, the Government presented to the House the Digital Britain strategy. This country is well placed to take advantage of the opportunities of the digital age, but we can seize those opportunities only if people are confident that they can operate safely in cyberspace.
	Every day, millions of people across the UKour constituentsrely on the services and information that make up cyberspace. Indeed, 65 per cent. of UK households have access to the internet, and the figure is growing by about 8 per cent. a year. The national security strategy, published for the first time by the Government last March and updated this year, sets out an honest and transparent appraisal of the risks that we face, including the threat that organised crime poses to our country. Organised crime costs us around 20 billion a year, and we have a duty to the British public and to British industry to take measures dramatically to reduce that cost.
	The Government also need to assess the threats from terrorist organisations and prepare our response to them; the public would expect no less. All those threats can arise in cyberspace. As the director general of the Security Service has said, a number of nations and organisations are
	trying to obtain political and economic intelligence at our expense
	and
	increasingly deploy sophisticated technical attacks, using the internet to penetrate computer networks.
	We know the importance that terrorist groups, notably al-Qaeda and its affiliates, place on the internet and cyberspace, which are particularly important for propaganda reasons. We know that terrorists would like to be able to operate more effectively in cyberspace. I am not scaremongering, but we need to look at the issues. Our assessment at present is not that terrorists have the capability to mount attacks imminently, but that we must honourably prepare as terrorists become more sophisticated.
	Such threats from states or terrorists could affect critical national systems, but there is also a real threat to millions of ordinary citizensour constituentsas well as their transactions and the businesses for which they work. Online fraud generated some 52 billion worldwide in 2007. The average cost to companies of information security incidents is in the range of 10,000 to 20,000. For a large company, the cost can be as high as 1 million to 2 million. As the dependence on cyberspace grows, we need to ensure security, which is critical to the health of the nation.
	As I mentioned, today the Government published, in a written ministerial statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the first cybersecurity strategy. As a result, we will establish an office of cybersecurity in the Cabinet Office to lead on cybersecurity policy issues, and a cybersecurity operations centre, a multi-agency body, based alongside GCHQ in Cheltenham. That organisation will lead on operations and technical capabilities, which we will examine.
	As a result of the new strategy, we will develop a cyber industrial strategy for the UK's critical security needs, in the same way as we have a defence industrial strategy; we will develop cybersecurity skills for the UK, plugging existing gaps and creating more high-tech employment opportunities; we will make critical systems in the public and private sectors more resilient and enhance our ability to detect attack; we will develop international law and doctrines of national defence in cyberspace, working with other countries; we will consider better advice to business and citizens about the security-risk picture and the steps that they need to take to address it; and we will develop new strategies for tackling terrorist and criminal use of cyberspace with our colleagues in the Association of Chief Police Officers and its strategy on cybercrime, which is due out shortly.
	We plan emergency responses, and the new centre will test the UK's ability to respond to major attacks, which we obviously believe that we can prevent, but which we need to consider. As with our national security, it will be important that the Government's powers are used proportionately and in a way that is consistent with civil liberty issues, as I know the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) would wish. So, from today, we will establish an ethics advisory group to advise on that issue, and I shall update the House on its membership when it is formed.
	The centres will be operational in September, and new funding will be announced before then to meet their obligations, building on existing resources that were allocated largely to intelligence agencies. Again, I shall report back to the House on those matters.
	The wider national security debate is important, and the Government have taken forward the good start that was made last year. We look ahead to the broad range of national security threats, and we look at how we can prevent them. Today, we have set out in the documents an updated analysis of the threats that we face, made commitments on what drives insecurity in the worldon conflict, energy, poverty and the impact of climate changeand published the cybersecurity strategy, which I hope will be the subject of some debate and interest.
	Britain depends very strongly on the dedicated work of the armed forces, the intelligence services, the police and other services in the support of those strategies. I pay tribute to them all for the courage that they display every day of the week in often very difficult circumstances. I commend the document to the House and hope that the written ministerial statement from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be read with interest by right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister owes you, Mr. Speaker, and the House an apology for the public handling of this strategy. As we speak, the Prime Minister is at Detica, a cybersecurity company. Why is he not here making an oral statement? There is no more important responsibility of Government than national security, and, for a key development in the critical area of cybersecurity to be trailed as it has, leading to the first occasion that you, Mr. Speaker, have granted an urgent question, is not only disgraceful but, more alarmingly, shambolic. The Ministers directing the strategy, who are supposed to keep us safe, cannot even manage the orderly public release of new policy.
	The lack of detail on cybersecurity in the national security strategy, which the Prime Minister presented last year, was an obvious area of weakness. The security industry publicly warned that the Government had severely underestimated the dangers that cyber attack poses and had accorded cybersecurity insufficient priority and budget. What has galvanised the Government into action? Has the threat from cyber attack grown in the past year, or has the swift and comprehensive response of the new American Administration made them realise that their priorities were wrong? It was an immediate priority for President Obama and, only four months into his Administration, he was reporting on the results. How can we be confident that the strategy before us reflects the proper American sense of priority, rather than being only a pale imitation?
	How will the new office of cybersecurity and the new cybersecurity operations centre fit with the work of existing agencies? We already have a number of different agencies working in the area: the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, the wider information assurance centre and the Communications Electronic Security Group, being the national technical authority for information assurance, which is based at GCHQ. All the above are already co-ordinated by a Cabinet Office-unit sponsor for information assurance. The Serious Organised Crime Agency and the police e-crime unit, based in the Metropolitan police, are responsible specifically for cybercrime.
	The Digital Britain report, which the Government published last week, announced the formation of a tripartite initiativethe tripartite internet crime and security initiativewhich will bring together parliamentarians, Government and business. The Government are in danger of presiding over a patchwork muddle of different agencies and mandates, to which they have now added an ethics advisory group. It is sad that Ministers now need advice on ethics. Will the new director instigate an immediate review of the mandates and achievements of all the different agencies involved in cybersecurity, to avoid overlap and ensure the best use of resources?
	There is wholly insufficient time to examine the strategy through the means of an urgent question, but I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for commanding the Minister here today. Will the Government commit, at the earliest opportunity, to a full debate on the strategy, led by the Prime Minister and in Government time? We need a national security council with a dedicated staff and decision-making powers at the heart of the Government. We are not there yet.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. First, I assure him on behalf of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that we have acted entirely properly in bringing this matter before the House. You, Mr. Speaker, will know that this morning the Prime Minister issued a written ministerial statement that publishes the documents.
	There has been press speculation about the issue, but I guarantee that we did not brief the press beforehand. If I can explain[Hon. Members: Oh!] If I can explain to hon. Members the circumstances that have given rise to press speculation [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I interrupt the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) for a moment? I say to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), and others who are making quite a lot of noise that they are damaging their own chances of asking questions from the Back Benches.

David Hanson: At 10 o'clock this morning, the detailed documents were published. My noble Friend Lord West of Spithead has written to you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you have received it by now; it has been copied to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). His letter outlines the circumstances of a specific aspect of today's announcement: the name of the individual who will be in charge of the said units, which was the subject of a D notice. As hon. Members will know, a D notice is a voluntary agreement under which the press agree not to publish certain details. The D notice was issued two days ago, rather than today. That was an error, and if I need to apologise to the House on behalf of the Department, I will do so. The notice was issued under embargo, but that embargo was not taken by several among the press yesterday. That is an important issue, but the details of the statementthe key thing for the hon. Member for Reigateare before the House in the written ministerial statement today.
	The hon. Gentleman said that he is concerned that we in the Government have not taken the threat seriously. A considerable amount of work was done by my predecessors and by my noble Friend Lord West of Spithead. Today, we have taken the opportunity to update the national security strategy and to bring forward the key issues. Like the President of the United States, we recognise that the cyber strategy covers a growing area of concern. Governance will be performed through my noble Friend's reporting to the Prime Minister and through the National Security, International Relations and Development Committee, a Cabinet Committee on which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sits and which will look at those issues.
	I am genuinely happy to debate the issues at an appropriate time. As the hon. Member for Reigate will know, business questions follow shortly. Government time is not in my gift, but the hon. Gentleman can ask a question during business questions if he wishes, and we will consider it as part of our discussions.
	This issue is important to citizens in our country, in respect of both business crime and international terrorism. We believe that we will get it right, but we want cross-party support on the obligations because that matters to the people of this country.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to Back Benchers to ask brief questions and to the Minister to offer brief replies.

David Blunkett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I shall try a question. As my right hon. Friend will know, I raised the issue of cybercrime and attack when we updated our Contest strategy earlier this year. I am deeply concerned that we not only co-ordinate correctly the organisations that can make a difference, but resource them effectively. My right hon. Friend will know that it is crucial to put resources into workstreams 3 and 5, on awareness and cultural change and on technical development, research and capability. We must also put resources into the e-crime unit, run by the Metropolitan police, which has already shown how effective it can be. As my right hon. Friend updates the House on resources in the summer, will he tell us that those specific areas will be resourced adequately so that the job can be done?

David Hanson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his work as Home Secretary in preparing the ground for some of these issues. Several hundred million pounds are already being spent, mostly by organisations that are part of the GCHQ complex and the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, which is part of the Security Service. That money comes out of a single intelligence account. With my colleague Lord West of Spithead, I will examine the funding of new organisations before we establish this process in September, and I will report back to the House on the details of the work streams that my right hon. Friend mentioned.

Tom Brake: I support the official Opposition's tabling of an urgent question on this matter. Without it, we would not have been able to have a timely debate on the national security strategy or an opportunity to examine its implications. That would have been a major problem for the House.
	The strategy clearly has the potential to defend us, but it could also have a significant impact on our civil liberties. We have to take the Minister's word for it that what happened was a breach of an embargo, or possibly a leak, but I am sure that Members will be concerned that there has been a leak about the cybersecurity strategy, of all things.
	One reason that the Government have given for bringing forward the strategy is the growing threat posed by hostile states, terrorists and criminals. We do not deny that that threat exists and is growing, but it is described in very broad terms. What criteria have the Government used to define hostile states, terrorists and criminals? To give us an idea of the scale of the threat that is posed, can the Minister tell us anything about how many attacks there have been on our networks, for instance over the past 12 months?
	This Government have a rather illiberal and invasive overarching counter-terrorism strategy that includes such Orwellian measures as control orders. Can the Minister give us some assurance that the cybersecurity operations centre will not just be used for snooping on British citizens' internet use? In the cyber strategy, there is mention that the Government will work closely with civil liberties groups. Which groups does the Minister have in mind, and at what point are they likely to be involved in the process?
	Finally, as far as I can tell, there is no impact assessment in relation to the proposals. What are the cost implications? We do not deny the need to have a cybersecurity strategy, but we need to be certain that it will not have an impact on our civil liberties. That is the reassurance that we are seeking from the Minister today.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. May I give him that assurance immediately? The strategy is about defending civil liberties and ensuring that we protect people's liberty to enjoy their lives free of crime and free of the terrorist threat. We have to have a balance between individual liberties and the issues set out in the cyber strategy. I will defend civil liberties and uphold rights, and that balance is extremely important. We will work through those issues as part of our discussions.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the threat that has occurred to date. We are not aware of any major compromise of national security or key systems to date, but that does not mean that we are complacent. We brought forward the strategy precisely to ensure that we put in place mechanisms to monitor potential threats and attacks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not appropriate for me to go into the number of countries or agencies that might be involved, because I do not want them to know that we know they are involved. However, I assure him that we will balance liberties with national security.
	On the cost element, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), I hope to report back to the House before early October about what costs are allocated to particular projects.

Keith Vaz: I share the concern of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) about the way in which the Government have handled this matter. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate if the Minister had made an oral statement. However, my right hon. Friend mentioned organised crime in his answer to the urgent question. The director and the chairman of SOCA gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs this week, but no mention was made about the urgency of the cyber threat from organised crime. Can the Minister confirm that there have been discussions with the chairman and director of SOCA and that any concerns raised with him have been taken on board?

David Hanson: We have had discussions across government about the implications of the strategy. We are working on crime issues in particular, given my responsibilities, and they are important issues. With regard to the oral statement, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister laid the issues before the House this morning in a written ministerial statement. As I have mentioned, the problem with the breaches arose in relation to the D notice that was issued. Initially, our mistake was that we did not put it under embargo, as we should have. It was later put under embargo, but unfortunately the press published that D notice and made a story around it, without knowing what was in the document, which was published to the House at 10 am today.

Patrick Mercer: The Minister will be aware how critical the counter-terrorism sub-committee has been, despite the slowness of establishing the new operations centre, and, similarly, how concerned we have been at the slowness of establishing the counter-terrorism units in the various regions up and down the United Kingdom. Can he assure us that there will be proper and sensible liaison between the two bodies, with effective sharing of intelligence, and that that will start not next year, but now?

David Hanson: Absolutely. Although I have been in this post for only two weeks and four days, I had a justice background in my previous Department, and I am urgently looking at those issues to ensure that the very things that the hon. Gentleman mentions are put in place. We need to ensure not just that Departments and the organisations within them are operating individually in their silos, but that we have co-operation across the board. Today's cyber strategy is about establishing a unit in GCHQ under effective leadership to look at those issues across government. That is the objective.

Jacqui Smith: I welcome today's publication by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of a wide-ranging, cross-government and cross-agency cyber security strategy. Given the significance that the Obama Administration have placed on cyber security, will my right hon. Friend the Minister outline how we will be able to work with our closest security ally to maximise our joint capability and minimise duplication?

David Hanson: I suspect that my right hon. Friend has as much knowledge of the work done to date as my noble Friend Lord West, who was involved in producing today's document, and I pay tribute to her for that. She makes a vital point. The internet and cyber security do not end at the boundaries of the United Kingdom. They are international and European issues, and ones on which we need to work closely with our allies in the American Administration. I am confident that the new unit will work closely with our colleagues in Washington and that it will have the same objectives, which are to tackle international organised crime, ensure that we are safe and try to prevent terrorist approaches to our cyber system.

John Whittingdale: I welcome the Minister's commitment to civil liberties, but will the national security strategy include the establishment of a national database to maintain records of web page visits, e-mails and VoIPvoice over internet protocolcalls and whether the Government intend to introduce a compulsory register of all mobile phones in the country?

David Hanson: If I may, I would like to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the detail of that point. Let me re-emphasise, however, that the whole purpose of the ethics committee that we are establishing is to look at the liberty issues surrounding internet activity under the cyber strategy. We are working through the detail of how we will do that, but I will certainly respond to the hon. Gentleman after this statement. However, the key thing, which those in all parts of the House need to know, is that the liberty of individuals to enjoy their business, their communities and their private lives on the internet is important to the Government, as is, equally, the ability to ensure that they are not subject to crime, terrorist threats or distraction by people who have alternative methods to hand.

Tom Watson: What a great shame it is that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) has squandered his opportunity to hold the Government to account. Is not the key issue that there is state-sponsored hacking of key UK information networks on an industrial scale and that we have to transform GCHQ into a spy school for geeks who are more cunning than their Chinese counterparts?

David Hanson: My hon. Friend puts his finger on a key issue. Today's document is about the protection of the public and the protection of UK interests in the UK. It is about ensuring that we are prepared to assess and examine the threat, that people understand that threat and that people are supported in their businesses, in their private lives and in government to take steps to prevent that threat from arising. The protection of the public is the key element of today's document. Without wishing to burden the hon. Member for Reigate, let me say that my hon. Friend puts his finger on an issue on which there is, I hope, cross-government and cross-party agreement.

Ben Wallace: Contrary to the Minister's statement that the D notice and the information about the individual appointment were the only things in the public domain, on 15 June more details were put into the public domain, both online and in  The Guardian, about the statement that the Government would set up an agency. Given the importance of information security and the Cabinet Office's role in that, will the Minister initiate a leak inquiry into how the information got into the public domain, unless, of course, that is done deliberately by the Government in the next 14 days?

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Let me say again that the detail of the announcement has been made public only this morning, in the ministerial statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My noble Friend Lord West of Spithead has written a letter to Mr. Speaker and the hon. Member for Reigate in confidence to explain the background to the D notice. I have given the House an account of that, and I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied with it.

Andrew Miller: For some years I have had the privilege to work with the Information Assurance Advisory Council, which brings together government officials and the private sector on the important issue of information assurance. May I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the new body will reach deep into the private sector and ensure a proper sharing of expertise? After all, the most likely areas for attack are probably in the City of London and other areas where we need proper sharing of our intelligence and the intelligence that the private sector gathers.

David Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. In today's document, which is clear and public, we have established eight work streams. One of the key work streams deals with skills, education, training and capability. The new unit will need to look at those issues and ask where the skills shortages are, where good practice is, which issues it will need to share and develop, and how it can do that in a way that helps businesses in particular, but also the general public and Departments, to protect and maintain the integrity of their cyber networks.

Julian Lewis: Will the Minister at least take back to his ministerial colleagues in other Departments the message that, whether it is deliberate or inadvertent, when advance news about matters that ought to be announced in this House leaks into the press, Ministers can expect to be summoned straight away to this House to answer urgent questions?

David Hanson: I think that you have made clear to my ministerial colleagues across the board the regime that you intend to operate, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt that both my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and other colleagues will help to support you in that objective.

Gisela Stuart: Given that Estonia was the first country to experience the devastating effect of a cyber attack, can the Minister say a bit more about how we are working with our European partners, especially the Baltic states, which are probably on the front line of the threat?

David Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the key things in the document, in work stream 7, is international engagement. One of the office's new tasks will be to bring together the UK's work with that of overseas partners and international organisations. Self-evidently, the European Union is one of the biggest local organisations in which we can get cross-governmental co-operation on some of the issues. That is important, and we will be commissioning working groups to take forward work across the board in the next few weeks and months.

Lembit �pik: There is a serious security concern for citizens, because, after all, the Government have shown themselves to be somewhat ineffective in preventing confidential information from falling into the wrong hands.
	Further to the point about Estonia, is the Minister aware of the devastating effect of the first organised cyber war ever launched against a countrynamely, Estonianot only on businesses but on private citizens? May I suggest that he recommend that the individuals responsible for developing the strategy here work directly with the Estonian authorities, which have not only experience of what happens when things go wrong but coping strategies to prevent it from happening again? I am sure that that would be useful for my constituents and all constituents across the United Kingdom.

David Hanson: We will certainly look at the experience of Estonia and at how we can learn from it. The hon. Gentleman's key point is that everyone needs to have confidence in the use of the cyber network. People need to have confidence that their information is not being hacked into or copied, and that it will not be used for criminal or terrorist purposes. The key objective of the document is to ensure that we help to develop that confidence still further.

Business of the House

Alan Duncan: May I invite the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 29 JuneSecond Reading of the Parliamentary Standards Bill.
	Tuesday 30 JuneConsideration in Committee of the Parliamentary Standards Bill.
	Wednesday 1 JulyConsideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Parliamentary Standards Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Saving Gateway Accounts Bill.
	Thursday 2 JulyEstimates [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate on looked-after children, followed by a debate on road safety. Details will be given in the  Official Report.
	 [The details are as follows:  Looked-after Children (3rd Report from the Children, Schools and Families Committee, HC 111 and Government response (4th Special report HC 787, to be published on Monday 29 June); Ending the Scandal of Complacency: Road Safety beyond 2010 (Eleventh Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2007-08, HC 460), and the Government's responses (First and Second Special Reports, Session 2008-09, HC 136 and HC422). ]
	At 6 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Friday 3 JulyPrivate Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 6 July will include:
	Monday 6 JulyOpposition Day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No.2) Bill.
	Tuesday 7 JulyRemaining stages of the Finance Bill (Day 1).
	Wednesday 8 JulyConclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill (Day 2).
	Thursday 9 JulyTopical debate, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve the Draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2009, followed by a motion to approve the Draft Council Tax Limitation (Maximum Amounts) (England) Order 2009.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 9 July will be:
	Thursday 9 JulyA debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee entitled Global Security: Iran.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business, but the way in which she appears to be presiding over House business at the moment does seem a tad shambolic. Last week, we were informed that the Government would be tabling today's motions in good time to give the House as much opportunity as possible to look over the proposals. However, nothing appeared on the Order Paper until yesterday. Then, on the same day, the Government inexplicably withdrew the motion that would have established a new ad hoc Committee on reforming this House. Will she advise us as to quite what is happening? If, as I suspect, the Government were embarrassed by the gulf between the Prime Minister's announcement and the proposed remit of the Committee, which was so narrow as to render the whole exercise absurd, why did not the Government simply support the amendments on the Order Paper that would have widened the Committee's scope and spared the right hon. and learned Lady's blushes? Or is the real truth that this whole episode was dreamt up in the No. 10 bunker merely to fill a space in a prime ministerial press release? When will the Committee now be established?
	On the new Parliamentary Standards Bill, which we will debate in its entirety next week, will the Leader of the House give her guarantee that issues of privilege will not be discussed by the House at the Bill's Committee stage until the Clerk of the House has given evidence to the Justice Select Committee, as I believe he is scheduled to do on Tuesday?
	May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the status of the Government's policy on identity cards? Four statutory instruments on ID cards were due to be debated last week, but then  The Sunday Times reportedcorrectly, as it turned outthat they were to be shelved for a month. In view of your important and welcome statement on ministerial statements yesterday, Mr. Speaker, will the right hon. and learned Lady now promise that the Home Secretary will come to Parliament to clarify here what Ministers have been briefing in privatenamely, that the Government realise that they are on to a loser and are getting ready to perform yet another major policy U-turn?
	Similarly, will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm the mysterious whereabouts of the Postal Services Bill, on which the Business Secretary has staked his reputation and, along with it, the Prime Minister's career? I have asked about this twice before and have twice received inadequate answers. There are only 16 sitting days left before the summer recess. The Bill's First Reading was over four weeks ago and, as the right hon. and learned Lady knows, Second Reading would normally follow swiftly behind. Is the Bill going to be delivered from the upper House or has itas I heard hon. Members saying just a few seconds agobeen permanently lost in the post?
	In the provisional business that the right hon. and learned Lady announced last week, the Child Poverty Bill was scheduled for this coming Monday. Now that we are going to be debating the Parliamentary Standards Bill on Monday instead, will she give us a commitment that the House will indeed debate this important Bill before the summer recess? We on the Opposition Benches are full of contributions that we wish to make to the legislation. The issue is all the more important in the light of yesterday's Office for National Statistics figures on the level of deprivation facing children growing up in London, nearly a quarter of whom are living in households where no one is working and which are plagued by obesity and crime. As the Leader of the House represents an inner-London borough, and for the sake of those whom the legislation seeks to protect, may I ask the her to guarantee not to lose sight of the Bill, and to bring it to the House as soon as possible?
	Given the Prime Minister's woeful performance at questions yesterday, may we have a full and urgent statement from him on financial honesty in the Government? Yesterday morning, Britain was found to be facing the biggest budget deficit in the world. At lunchtime, the Prime Minister's attempts to defend himself in the Commons ended in ridicule. In the afternoon, the Governor of the Bank of England complained that he had been left in the dark about important aspects of Government policy, and delivered the final blow by calling on the Government to set tougher targets on the UK's extraordinary debt levels. Is it not clear that the longer the Prime Minister deludes himself about being in power, the longer it will take the UK to recover?
	Finally, may I simply note that, this week, we are celebrating the second anniversary of the right hon. and learned Lady's ascension to her position as Leader of the House? I will send her a card saying Now we are two. Members may take that to mean anything they wish.

Harriet Harman: The shadow Leader of the House asked about the motion on the Committee. The intention is that this Committee of the House will be chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), and that it will consider the improvement of the processes for the Government being held to account by Members of this House. We tabled a motion, and amendments to it were tabled. We considered the amendments; in fact, more amendments have been tabled this morning. If we are trying to achieve consensus across the House, I think that it is right and proper that, instead of ploughing on with our resolution, we should listen to what is being said and see whether we can take on board the different points of view and proceed on a basis of consensus.
	The shadow Leader of the House told everyone that he was a new man, but is it not quintessentially old politics to insist that we do not need to listen? As Leader of the House, it is important for me to listen to hon. Members when they table amendments, and to take into account what they suggest. I do not think that that is the sign of a shambles; it is the sign of how the Leader of the House should proceed. I do not think that it is a sign of weakness; it is a sign of strength. The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to hearI will talk to him and all other hon. Members about thisthat we will proceed to bring forward a resolution, before the House rises, on which I hope the whole House can agree, so that we can set up the Committee and improve the way in which the House holds the Government to account.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Parliamentary Standards Bill. He has seen it; it has been published, and it will be debated on the Floor of the House over three days. He will see from the face of the Bill that the question of parliamentary privilege is not an issue in that Bill, so that is not a question that hon. Members need to concern themselves with. Essentially, the Parliamentary Standards Bill sets up an authority to deal with our allowances to ensure that they are established and administered independently and that the public can have confidence that that is the case. It will not trample on the question of privilege.
	On ID cards, there is no change in Government policy. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Home Secretary keeps the matter under review at all times. If there is any change in policy, the House will be kept updated. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have introduced biometric ID cards for foreign nationals, and I hope he supports that, as it is not only important for security, but speeds up the sorting out of identity questions so that access to visas, for example, is made easier for people who are genuinely who they say they are. He also knows that we are introducing this approach for air-side in airports, and that there will be no compulsory ID cards for everybody else without a vote in this House. If there is any change on thatI do not expect that there will bethe Home Secretary will keep the House informed. He keeps the matter under review, as I said.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Postal Services Bill. It is not announced for next week's business or that for the week after. He will see that we had to make a space for three days for the Parliamentary Standards Bill. I think it is important, with a crisis of public confidence in the House, to bring forward this measure and address it quickly. At the same time, to ensure proper scrutiny of the measure while bringing it in expeditiously, we need to give adequate time for it to be debated on the Floor of the House. That is why debate of the Parliamentary Standards Bill will be across three days.
	The Child Poverty Bill is not in the business that I have announced, but I hope that it will be brought in before the summer recess. I expect that to be the case, and on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman said, I hope that the Opposition will vote for it when it comes before the House.
	On the economy, it remains the No. 1 priority of the Government to take action to protect businesses and people's jobs, and to make sure that if people lose their job, they do not also lose their home. We will intervene and take action in all those respects, and we will make sure that we grow the economy out of recession rather than cut it, which is not the way to take us out of the recession.

David Heath: I am a generous sort, and I like to give credit where credit is due. I entirely applaud what the Leader of the House has just saidthat from now on, she is going to consult before putting motions before the House; she is going to listen to what people say, and then react to those requests. Hallelujah! That is what we have been asking for for years. If that has happened in respect of the Committee to be chaired by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)I tabled a modest amendment, which was supported in all parts of the House, and the Leader of the House has now given me to understand that she will agree to itit is very good news indeed.
	When we look at today's Order Paper, however, what do we see? We see motions 6 to 13, standing in the name of the Leader of the House, setting up the Regional Grand Committees. The right hon. and learned Lady knows that I support the idea of having such Committees, but has she consulted before tabling the motions? No, she has not. Has she canvassed the subject matter that the Regional Grand Committees will discuss? No, she has not. Has she sought convenient places and dates to enable those Committees to meet? No, she has not. All she has consulted is the so-called regional Ministers, who have then decided where those Committees will meet, when they will meet and what they will discuss. What sort of scrutiny of Government is that? Will she now withdraw motions 6 to 13 and talk to me and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) in order to move forward?
	The Government need to come clean on the question of ID cards. The Conservatives changed their minds eventually, and former Home Secretariesand there are enough of themhave changed their minds, so when are the Government going to admit that they will have to change their mind on ID cards and come to the position that we have advocated all along?
	In looking at how this House scrutinises business, can we look seriously at how we scrutinise Government expenditure? As I have said before, there is no adequate mechanism for the House as a whole to look at Government spending. We have estimates days which do not involve looking at estimates; we have Consolidated Fund motions which do not involve any debate on the Consolidated Fund; and we give more scrutiny to a ten-minute Bill than to the Government's entire spending programme. Can we have some major reforms to enable us to carry out such scrutiny, so that we are not simply asked to write out cheques? If that had happened, we might not have been facing the biggest financial deficit that this country has ever seen, and the biggest seen in Europe. Can we have a debate very soon, so that we can see how the Government plan, as the Governor of the Bank of England says,
	to return to a sustainable position over the lifetime of the next Parliament?
	That is crucial. It is no good pretending that the bills are not mounting up; we have to find a way of paying them.
	Finally, I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has acceded the request I made last week about reconstituting the Science and Technology Committee. I suggest that the Committee be asked an early stage to look at the recent research of Professor Tonegawa, published in  Neuron magazine, which reveals that we edit our memories when fast asleep. Could that explain the difference between what the Prime Minister says and what he does?

Harriet Harman: The question of what the Science and Technology Committee looks at is a matter for that Committeeif the House establishes the new Committee, as I am sure it will when we reach that part of our business this afternoon.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about consultation relating to the Regional Grand Committees. I remind the House that motions will come before hon. Members later this afternoon to establish such Committees and to ensure that they sit in September, in the regions. Regional Grand Committees are Committees of all Members in a region, and they will look at how Government agencies and policies are working in that region. There was consultation, and it was with the Regional Select Committees. It is not my fault if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not sit on those Committees, or if the official Opposition do not want to join the Regional Select Committees. I think that they should join them; on behalf of the regions they represent, they should hold Government agencies to account. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will attend and play a part with regard to the Regional Grand Committees, and the Regional Select Committees as well.
	On ID cards, I have nothing to add to what I said to the shadow Leader of the House.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about scrutiny by the House of Government spending. It is not true to say that there is no scrutiny of Government spending: we have oral questions, the pre-Budget report and debates, as chosen by the Liaison Committee, of Select Committee reports. How the House scrutinises public spending is a subject that could fall within the remit of the Committee that we hope to establish under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright).
	I have already said that I want to listen and consult before I table motions, and it is obviously even more necessary to listen and consult when amendments are forthcoming. There is nothing wrong, however, with the process of tabling a motion, seeing that there is a whole heap of amendments and then talking about the matter. That is not a U-turn; it is not weakness or backing down; it is about setting out a position, seeing what people likeor, in this case, dislikeabout it and thinking again.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. Many Members want to contribute, so I appeal to each Member to ask one brief supplementary question.

Gordon Prentice: On 15 June, for the first time ever, more Labour peers voted against the Government than with them, to close the loophole that allows tax exiles to bankroll UK political parties. Will my friend seek to reverse that vote when the Political Parties and Elections Bill comes back to the Commons, and will we get that Bill before the recess?

Harriet Harman: When the Bill comes back to this House, the Minister concerned will make the position clear, no doubt having discussed it widely with Members on both sides of the House before doing so.

Ann Widdecombe: Will the Leader of the House make time within the parliamentary timetable to revisit the recently imposed abolition of the de minimis rules in the Register of Members' Interests? I have been told in all solemnity by the registrar today that in future every bunch of flowers will have to be registered. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Lady that that will result in not only my entry in the register, but those of several female Members, having more petals than the average botanical gardens. Can she make time to consider the question? Perhaps we should go with Gilbert and Sullivan: The flowers that bloom with the speech, tra-la, have nothing to do with the case.

Harriet Harman: There is a de minimis rule for donations, which is 1 per cent.650. Unless the bunch of flowers given to the right hon. Lady is worth more than 650 [Interruption.] If hon. Members will bear with me, I am trying to explain the situation. If there is a donation, a de minimis rule will apply, and I suspect that when people give her flowers, it is a donation rather than payment for services. If there is payment for services, in cash or in kind, that needs to be declared. It is quite easy for hon. Members to work out whether the item is a gift given after something has been done, or payment for services. If payment for services has taken place, there is no de minimis rule, nor should there be.

Albert Owen: Can we have a debate on the impact of high electricity prices on manufacturing in the United Kingdom, particularly on energy-intensive industries such as aluminium smelting? UK companies are finding such prices difficult, and that is threatening UK jobs and production.

Harriet Harman: Ministers in the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are very concerned about increased energy prices, generated particularly by the cost of oil. I will ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to write to my hon. Friend about that.

George Young: Further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the new rules that come into effect next Wednesday are virtually unworkable. If I make an after-dinner speech and my wife is presented with a bouquet of flowers, those become registrable. Under the Parliamentary Standards Bill, failure to register becomes a criminal offenceand if I ask her to give them back, I will be in even deeper trouble. When will the Leader of the House reply to the letter I wrote to her on 2 June asking her to introduce a sensible de minimis threshold for that part of the register?

Harriet Harman: I think that the guidance will be workable. Obviously, we will ensure that we work closely with the registrar of financial interests to ensure that Members understand the rules clearly. There is no intention to have an unworkable system. The House supported the resolution for a register because the public are entitled to know, if Members are receiving payments for services, who is paying them and what they are paying them for.

Siobhain McDonagh: Will my right hon. and learned Friend try to find time for a debate on the quality of advice being given to people in jobcentres, particularly in south London? I am increasingly aware that many of the new deal advisers are unaware of the services and support that they can provide to lone parents returning to work.

Harriet Harman: Department for Work and Pensions questions are on Monday, when perhaps my hon. Friend can put that question to Ministers, who are very concerned to ensure high-quality work in jobcentres.

Richard Younger-Ross: May I say that the Conservative Members who have spoken about minimum payments are entirely right?
	May I ask the Leader of the House about English Heritage's launch yesterday of Heritage at Risk? It cites one in seven conservation areas as being at risk. Given the Government's failure to bring in a heritage protection Bill last year, can we have an urgent debate on what other measures can be taken to protect listed and other buildings that are deteriorating and being demolished because of lack of action by the Government?

Harriet Harman: I will ask Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to write to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether any of his concerns come within the purview of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but it has questions next week.

Mark Fisher: May I congratulate the Leader of the House on recognising the strength of support for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) yesterday, and on giving herself and the Government more time to think carefully about these matters? When she does so, will she think particularly carefully about the distinction between Government time and time that should properly be controlled by the House? Of course every Government have the right to introduce the legislation which they proposed when being elected, and should have plenty of time for that, but surely all other business is a matter for the House, including all matters of scrutiny of the Government. It is not for the Government to decide how much and what sort of time should be given to such scrutiny.

Harriet Harman: I agree with the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend. It is important that a democratically elected Government are able to deliver on their manifesto commitments and to get their business through the House, and that the House of elected Members makes sure that that legislation is properly scrutinised and that the Government continue to be held to account. That is why I hope that the Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), will be able to look across those issues.

Philip Hollobone: Can we have an urgent debate on negative equity in the housing market? The recent rise in negative equity across the country has been most pronounced in Northamptonshire and the east midlands, and thousands of people are in real trouble?

Harriet Harman: Negative equity is a particular concern if people cannot afford to stay in their homes and are forced to sell them at a very low market value. That is why we have taken a range of actions to protect people from being forced into repossession, including the support for mortgage interest scheme, the homeowner mortgage support scheme, the mortgage rescue scheme, the repossession prevention fund and the mortgage pre-action protocol. Repossessions, although rising, are still way below the level in the previous recession, and we are taking all the action that we can to prevent them from rising faster.

Ken Purchase: My right hon. and learned Friend will have seen in this morning's papers and elsewhere that energy companieselectricity and gas suppliersare being accused of grossly overcharging their customers. It is also suggested that Ministers should have a strategy to intervene if such companies refuse to reduce their prices by the end of December. Will she ask the Minister responsible to come to the House and reveal his plans for interventions so that people in this country are not overcharged for what should rightfully be subject to a true, fair and proper price set by a regulator?

Harriet Harman: The issue is very important for industry and businesses as well as people in their own homes. I will discuss with the Minister responsible the best way to keep the House updated on Government action in this important respect.

Angus Robertson: It has emerged that the now Defence Secretary told me and the families of 14 service personnel who died aboard Nimrod XV230 that the aircraft had been made safe, despite being warned that it was impossible to be sure that that was true. We were repeatedly told that defence consultants QinetiQ agreed that the aircraft was safe to fly, despite the company warning that
	no statement can, or has been made
	to that effect. Can we have a debate in Government time to learn which version is correct?

Harriet Harman: If an hon. Member is to raise in business questions an important point on a matter of great seriousness and heartfelt concern to many individuals, it is worth giving me notice of it in advance, so that I can give a proper, fuller answer, having consulted the Minister responsible in advance. I will draw Ministers' attention to the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Dennis Skinner: May we assume that the listening and consultation applies to Labour Members as well as to the Opposition? Does it explain the absence of the Postal Services Bill, which has not arrived in the House? Is that because Ministers have found the strength, having listened to scores, indeed hundreds, of Labour MPs, to ensure that the part-privatisation of Royal Mail does not go ahead? If that is the order of the day, well done!

Harriet Harman: On Leader of the House issues, if my hon. Friend looks at the amendments that were tabled to my motion, he will see that they are in the names of Members on both sides of the House, including on our own Labour Benches. It is a question not just of cross-party talks with Front-Bench spokesmen but of looking at all the names of hon. Members on the Order Paper, including those on our side of the House. I shall refer his comments to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Justine Greening: May we have a debate on the effectiveness of the NHS in managing its land assets? Putney hospital has been derelict for 10 years. At the eleventh hour, NHS London has pulled the rug on its redevelopment into badly needed GP premises. Clearly there is a general issue about bureaucracy. May we have a chance to debate that in the House?

Harriet Harman: It is always worth drawing such issues to the attention of Health Ministers in oral questions. Perhaps the hon. Lady will look for an opportunity to do that. It is very important that the NHS manages its assets, including its land assets, properly. That is even more important against a background of hundreds of millionsin fact billionsof pounds of extra investment into the NHS. That is important investment to be made to help improve that vital public service, but obviously we want to ensure that every pound is well spent.

James McGovern: May we have a debate in Government time about the provision of apprenticeship schemes when local authorities award contracts to the private sector? It should be incumbent on local authorities to ensure that when they award contracts to private sector companies, such companies have approved accredited apprenticeship schemes that allow apprentices to attend further education colleges. Dundee city council in my constituency has just awarded a contract to a private sector company, but we have yet to receive assurances from the separatist Scottish National party-led council that it will ensure that an apprenticeship scheme is in place.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Given how public services, in particular local government, procure services and engage in direct construction projects, they have a major opportunity to ensure that apprenticeships are provided. I know, for example, that that is very much at the centre of the work on the Olympics. I will bring his comments to the attention of the relevant Ministers and ask them to write to him.

Angus MacNeil: May I draw attention to early-day motion 1739 in my name on fishermen from the Philippines who work on the west coast of Scotland?
	 [That this House strongly believes that the Government should quickly reconsider its policies regarding fishermen from the Philippines working in the waters around the Outer Hebrides and west coast of Scotland by establishing a six month moratorium on deportations; notes that these fishermen are not unskilled workers as they need several qualifications to engage in the fishing profession while filling a severe shortage of skilled fishing labour in the Western Isles; and further notes that deporting these fishermen will be yet another blow to the Isles as the Government is already planning to close the Hebrides Range which will result in the loss of almost 120 jobs.]
	Fishermen's leaders are calling daily to tell me that fishermen are being threatened with deportation or are not being allowed back on to their boats from the Philippines. As a result, at the time of credit crunch, boats are having to tie up. May we have a debate on the importance of beneficial immigration into the UK and, indeed, the high regard with which fishermen from the Philippines are held on the west coast of Scotland?

Harriet Harman: Given that those questions cut across the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office, the hon. Gentleman might want to raise them at DEFRA questions next week.

Peter Bone: On 14 January, Mr. Nicholas Mazordze, a constituent of mine, was promised by the UK Border Agency that his immigration case would be resolved within 28 days. It was not. On 2 May, he was promised by the UK Border Agency that it would be resolved within two weeks. It was not. In June, I raised a parliamentary question on the matter. It is still not resolved. Yesterday, I tried to ring the MPs hotline. That was unobtainable. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on the shambolic nature of the UK Border Agency?

Harriet Harman: The overall performance of the UK Border Agency has improved over the years. I know that as the Member with the most immigration cases of anyone in the House. Certainly, the MPs hotline has been very helpful to many hon. Members over the year. However, the hon. Gentleman has a particular case, which he has now raised on the Floor of the House. I will ensure that it is brought to the attention of the Immigration Minister forthwith.

Gwyn Prosser: When can we have a debate on the free passage of passengers and freight vessels across the channel into Dover? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the French unions are attempting to disrupt the passage of British flagged, British crewed ships, ridiculously describing them as operating under flags of convenience?

Harriet Harman: I will raise that with Ministers in the Foreign Office. Part of the importance of us working very closely with other countries in Europe, and making sure that Britain is central and at the heart of Europe, is to ensure that important ports such as Dover, which my hon. Friend champions, can flourish in the future.

Alan Reid: This morning's announcement by Consumer Focus that it has found that energy companies are not passing on the full decline in wholesale prices to consumers must be investigated. May we have an urgent statement from the Energy Minister to get to the bottom of that, as it appears that every consumer is being overcharged by an average of 74? Can we ensure that energy companies are forced to pass every penny of the decline in wholesale prices on to the consumer?

Harriet Harman: Ministers meet the energy companies regularly. As I said, I will bring to the attention of Ministers the question of reporting the latest situation to the House.

Keith Vaz: May we have a debate on the allocation of resources for the modernisation and adaptation of the homes of the elderly? My constituent Mrs. Bhanji is 86 years of age. She has Parkinson's, she is blind, she has low mobility, but she has been waiting for more than a year for the grant to be approved. I am not apportioning blame between the Government or the local authority, but is important that we have a debate on why that takes so long.

Harriet Harman: I will draw the attention of the Minister for Housing to the points raised by my right hon. Friend.

Andrew Murrison: The National Cancer Intelligence Network has today published alarming figures that show that the gap between the cancer outcomes of the over-75s in this country and those in comparable countries has widened even further. May we have a debate in Government time on why it is that the Government's national cancer plan is failing our elderly constituents?

Harriet Harman: We recognise that there is inequality and age discrimination in the health service. That is why we have put a provision in the Equality Bill to outlaw discrimination in the provision of health services on grounds of age, which is a major step forward. In order to prepare the way for the introduction of that new tough law, a pilot is being undertaken by the Department of Health covering the whole of the South-West regional health authority and also Bristol city council. We are piloting it in advance of the Bill coming into effect in order to tackle age discrimination in the health services. It is disappointing that Opposition Members voted against the Bill on Second Reading.

Stephen Ladyman: By the middle of this century, four times as many older people will need care, and there is a growing funding gap in respect of the care needs of people with complex learning disabilities. Will my right hon. and learned Friend promise that when the social care Green Paper is published shortly, which addresses those incredibly difficult challenges, we will have a significant amount of time in the House to debate the ideas in it?

Harriet Harman: Everybody should be in no doubt about the importance of that agenda for the future. It is important not only for the statutory agencies, such as health and social services, but for the voluntary sector, which plays a major role in respect of those issues. It is also important for families, because the overwhelming bulk of care is provided not by agencies or voluntary services, but by family members, who need to go out to work as well as care for an older or disabled relative. I will try to ensure that we have a good opportunity to debate the Green Paper when it comes forward.

Andrew MacKay: I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that the situation in Iran is dire, with the Government there having rigged the presidential election and a number of pro-democracy demonstrators being either killed or imprisoned. She will also be aware that independent informed commentators feel that our Government could have been more robust in the defence of democracy. To put matters right, will she ensure that the Foreign Secretary comes to the House next week to make a further statement on the situation in Iran?

Harriet Harman: I know that our Government are working with other Governments to make absolutely sure that the democratic rights of the people of Iran are recognised. That is a matter of great importance to the Iranian people. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he will have an opportunity to question Ministers in Westminster Hall on 9 July, and that the Secretary of State and Ministers will respond to oral questions on Tuesday.

Gordon Banks: Business insolvency is a serious matter, and never more so than nowadays. May we have a debate in Government time to allow us to consider how to improve returns to unsecured creditors, and also how to reduce the fees of insolvency practitioners?

Harriet Harman: I shall bring my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Michael Penning: Perseverance obviously works in the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I tried to catch Mr. Speaker's eye earlier today during transport questions, but was unable to do so. With that in mind, may I ask for a debate on the rural roads network? That would allow me to raise the subject of Water End, a hamlet in my constituency which is being shaken to bits by the heavy traffic that goes through it. It was designed for horse and cart traffic, but it is now the main road between Hemel Hempstead and Leighton Buzzard. May we have a debate that would allow us to raise local issues of that kind?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman clearly has an existential problem. It seems that, as well as failing to be called during transport questions, he failed to catch Mr. Speaker's eye during last Thursday's debate on rural affairs. Perhaps I shall be able to suggest a further opportunity for him to put himself forward.

Ann Cryer: May we have a debate to celebrate the qualities and work of Members in all parts of the House? I am becoming increasingly disturbed by the degree of nastiness that is being directed at Members. I know that it began as a legitimate form of investigative journalism, and I have no problem with that, but it has descended into a witch hunt that is hiding from our constituents the very good work that many of us are doing, or trying to do.

Harriet Harman: I think that the way in which to address the genuine public anger about the issue of allowances is to show by our actions that we are determined to put the allowances system on a wholly independent footingto ensure that the rules are clear, and to ensure that they are decided independently by the Parliamentary Standards Authority. I hope that that will not only assuage the public anger, but restore the respect that ought to be given to hon. Members and for this institution.

Robert Wilson: The Leader of the House may remember that during business questions on 4 June I asked for a topical debate on how we could help Pakistan and its 3 million displaced people. At the time, the right hon. and learned Lady thought that that was a good proposal. I understand from her statement today that there is a space on 9 July. May we please have the debate then?

Harriet Harman: The Foreign Secretary will answer questions in the House on Tuesday. I suggest that, as well as leaving the issue on my agenda, the hon. Gentleman raise it directly with him.

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate on corporate responsibility to our communities and, indeed, our country? My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that today hundreds of workers are on strike in power stations throughout the country. That has been caused by the action of Total, the oil company, which has brought in foreign nationals to undermine the terms and conditions of indigenous workers. May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to use her good offices and ask Total to act responsibly? If it does not, others will be encouraged to vote for extreme parties such as the British National party.

Harriet Harman: We can all well understand, against the background of a global economic crisis, the anxiety that people feel about their jobs. That is why the Government are taking every possible action to step in and protect businesses. We also hope that all partiesboth sides in the dispute that my hon. Friend has mentionedwill act responsibly, and talk to each other to try to reach agreement so that work can resume.

James Duddridge: Following discussions between the Prime Minister and Morgan Tsvangirai, the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, may we have a debate in Government time on what the British Government can do to assist Zimbabweans who want to return to their country to help to rebuild it? I am thinking particularly of the professionals who have, I understand, been identified by the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe.

Harriet Harman: It seems that the House is going to be very full for Foreign Office questions on Tuesday. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he, too, should try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on that occasion in order to ask the Foreign Secretary a question.

Lindsay Hoyle: A few months ago, I mentioned to my right hon. and learned Friend the plight of charities, particularly the hospice movement, and the need for a debate on the subject. I wonder whether she has heard about the problems of Derian house, a children's hospice in my constituency that serves children from Scotland and throughout England. It has introduced a new service, which cost well over 1 million. The money was raised locally, but the VAT has not been given back to the charity, and 350,000 must now be found. May we have a debate about the hospice movement, and about the plight of Derian house in particular?

Harriet Harman: I shall look for an opportunity for the House to debate the hospice movement; it is an important issue, and a number of Members have raised it. As for the children's hospice in my hon. Friend's constituency, there is no need to wait for a debate. I shall bring the matter to the attention of Health Ministers, and try to establish whether it can be resolved more promptly.

Evan Harris: The House was elected above all to scrutinise legislation, especially legislation proposed by the Government. I hope the Leader of the House will accept that, while the Government have specified a date when a Bill will be introduced and there will be an opportunity for them to table amendments and new clauses, the scrutiny of that Bill is the business of the House. I welcome her wise decisionwhich is not a U-turnto think again about the terms of reference of the Wright commission. I have two requests. First, will the Leader of the House consult members of the commission, who will have been elected by all parties in the House, on the terms of reference before returning the motion to the Order Paper? Secondly, will she open negotiations with the Opposition parties and interested Back Benchers on how her Equality Bill will be scrutinised on Report? It is an important Bill, and scrutiny of it is therefore also important.

Harriet Harman: I will do both those things. The hon. Gentleman's point has some validity. It is usual for Government to divide the House's work into Government and non-Government business, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that Government Bills are House business and the distinction is therefore somewhat artificial. I hope that the Wright commission will be able to examine those issues.

Ian Cawsey: About 15 minutes ago, Corus issued a statement confirming its proposal to cut more than 2,000 jobs in its long products section, including 500 white-collar managerial jobs. Most of those jobs will be lost at the Scunthorpe works in north Lincolnshire. Given all that the work force have done to try to weather the storm and stay together during the recession, will my right hon. and learned Friend organise an urgent debate on Government support for the steel industry? Will she also ensure that the Business Secretary meets Members from the affected constituencies, along with the trade unions, so that we can do what we can to keep intact a first-rate competitive British steel industry?

Harriet Harman: The matter is of great concern to, above all, my hon. Friend's constituents and people in neighbouring constituencies, but it is a matter of national importance as well. I shall draw what he has said to the attention of Business Ministers, and will expect them to meet him and other Members immediately to discuss this important issue.

David Jones: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make a further statement to the House on the circumstances that led to the collapse of the Dairy Farmers of Britain co-operative and on what has happened since? Across the north of England and throughout Wales, more than 1,500 farmers are suffering as a result of not having received their full milk cheques for May. That demands a further statement from the Secretary of State. Will the Leader of the House urge him to make one as a matter of urgency?

Harriet Harman: The Secretary of State will be answering questions in the House next week. Given that this has been such an important issue in many regions, I am sure that he will be able to account to the House for the situation then.

Paul Holmes: When the Policing and Crime Bill was in Committee in February, the two most important and controversial parts of iton DNA databases and on anti-gang injunctionswere introduced at the very last minute during the final week, and could not be scrutinised or amended properly. On Report, we had only 40 minutes in which to discuss DNA. That makes a travesty of the idea that the House carries out democratic scrutiny of the Executive and of legislation.
	In advance of the establishment of the Wright commission, will the Leader of the House make a clear statement at the Dispatch Box that in future the Government will not abuse Executive power and will not abuse programme motions, and that we shall never again see such a travesty of democratic scrutiny?

Harriet Harman: It is not long until the summer recess, and we hope to establish the Wright Committee before then. I hope that its terms of reference will include the requirement on it to report swiftly, so that these matters can be considered in the context of that Committee.

Mark Harper: I want to test how closely the right hon. and learned Lady has been listening. I raised with her on 30 April the issue of Ministersindeed, herselfcommenting in the media about the publication of Bills before they are made available to Members of the House. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) raised a point of order with Mr. Speaker, and the right hon. and learned Lady was in her place. Mr. Speaker said that the thrust of his remarks about Ministers coming to this House first were clear. Has the right hon. and learned Lady thought about that, and is she prepared to say that Ministers will not speak to the media about the publication of Bills until they are available to Members of this House? Mr. Speaker's statement was very clear.

Harriet Harman: If notice is given of a ministerial statement and Members come to the House to hear that, it is very important that the first people who are able to ask questions about that statement are Members of this House, not journalists, and therefore it is important that the statement to the House comes first, before it is put into the newspapers or broadcast on radio or television. The matter of Bills is slightly different. I heard what Mr. Speaker said yesterday, and it goes without saying that what he said is, by definition, correct, but, by the time that we reach the presentation of a Bill, there has, usually, been extensive consultation. For instance, I had already made a statement to the House setting out the bones of the Parliamentary Standards Bill before the details of it were published. It is important to try to ensure that the House is respected and that it gets to hear about matters first, but in respect of the publication of Bills there has often already been a consultation process and it is not quite so easy to draw the line. Wherever the line is drawn, however, I hope that I and other Members will stay on the right side of it.

Mark Pritchard: The Leader of the House is known as a great equalities champion. Therefore, may we have a debate on inequalities in the current planning system? If she lived in Wales or Scotland and someone wanted to mine an open-cast mine, they would not be able to do so if it was within 500 m of her home, but in England the designated distance is only 100 m. May we have an urgent debate to end that discrimination?

Harriet Harman: I will bring that to the attention of Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Jo Swinson: We have our new Speaker, we will shortly have our new reform Committee, and I hope we have a new mood for change, so can we also have a debate on how new technology can be used to help Parliament better connect with the public?

Harriet Harman: The Procedure Committee has been working on the specific question of the public being able to put items on the agenda for debate and votes in this House. It produced a report on e-petitions, so it has done a lot of the groundwork on this already. Perhaps that work can be brought to fruition by the parliamentary Committee that is now being set up.

Bernard Jenkin: The Parliamentary Standards Bill is, by any standard, an extremely important constitutional measure, yet the deliberations on it are being confined to a mere three days. That means that there will be only 18 hours of debate before it passes through all its stages in this House. Would this House not earn a bit more respect if we delayed the rising of the House for the recess to enable the Government to give more days of debate to this extremely important Bill? By no stretch of the imagination will it be possible to debate every clause and amendment next week.

Harriet Harman: I agree that this is an important measure. What we all need to bear in mind, however, is the need for a balance between having proper scrutiny of these important measures and getting the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority set up and operating without undue delay. I think that having an opportunity to debate the issue on the Floor of the House across three days should give enough time to address what is a relatively short and focused Bill that essentially sets up the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and gives it the power to run our allowances. Debate across three days should be enough time for us to be satisfied that we have properly and thoroughly scrutinised the Bill.

Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on what he meant when he came to Southampton and told the people of Southampton and Totton in my constituency that they would decide whether or not their tap water was fluoridated? According to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen):
	The Prime Minister's statement serves to highlight the legislative requirements contained in section 89 of the Water Industry Act 1991 whereby a strategic health authority must 'consult and ascertain opinion' before requesting a water undertaker to increase the fluoride content of a water supply.[ Official Report, 22 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 722W.]
	All the MPs, including one of the Prime Minister's Cabinet colleagues, have said that, because of lack of public support, the process should not go ahead, yet the undemocratic strategic health authority is pressing on with it. What did the Prime Minister mean when he said that the people will decide?

Harriet Harman: The strategic authorities responsible for water should come within the purview of the Regional Select Committees and the Regional Grand Committee. I hope the hon. Gentleman will play his part on the Regional Committee in holding them to account, and that he will raise fluoridation with the relevant Ministers, namely Health Ministers as well as the Prime Minister.

Ben Wallace: The equipment that keeps our armed forces safe on the front line is developed and manufactured in the United Kingdom, based on research carried out by the Ministry of Defence and its agencies. Unfortunately, the Government have decided this year to cut the MOD research budget by 7 per cent. and are planning a year-on-year cut in that research all the way up to the Olympics and beyond. May we have an urgent debate before we break up, given that our forces will be on operations while we are in recess, so that we can hold Defence Ministers to account for, perhaps, putting some of our soldiers at risk by cutting this budget?

Harriet Harman: We do not underestimate at all the importance of research and science, and of investing in that. In fact, although we account for only 1 per cent. of the world's population, we generate 5 per cent. of the world's science and research. This country is at the forefront of science and research, therefore, and the Government have made sure that we invest in it across the board. I know that there has been a great deal of extra investment in the MOD. I do not know whether some of this research has been mainstreamed into other parts of the research community, but I will bring the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of MOD Ministers.

Susan Kramer: The House will be aware that foreign students who have applied to study at UK universities are now withdrawing those applications in droves because they cannot negotiate the new and impossible visa application system. As a consequence, universities will be in financial distress because of the loss of fees that they had been expecting from foreign students. Will the Leader of the House find an appropriate Minister to make a statement to the House, as this matter falls between the stools of two Departments? We must provide some triage for this year, and make sure that changes are made to guard against a permanent loss of foreign students from the UK education system.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Lady is right that foreign students are a very important part of our further and higher education system, but they are also important for our economic prospects as students from all around the world are familiar with Britain from having studied here. I am sure that action on the issues the hon. Lady has raised is already in hand, but I will get the Minister to write to her.

Point of Order

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will know, on today's Order Paper there are a series of motions, beginning with motion 6, relating to the timing and holding of Regional Grand Committees. Item five of the agenda for the Chairmen's Panel next week states that the panel may wish to discuss the planned meetings of Regional Grand Committees debated in the House on Thursday 25 June. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are not able to debate these motions because the Government have said they should not be subject to debate, notwithstanding the fact that there will be plenty of time today for such a debate. I also understand that it is not even possible for us to seek to amend these motions, notwithstanding that there has not been any consultation with any members of those Committees on the proposed dates for those meetings. In the case of the South West Regional Grand Committee, of which I am a member by virtue of having been elected to represent Christchurch, the meeting is due to take place during the family school holidays and that has not been the subject of any consultation. Is this not an intolerable state of affairs, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and how can you help Back Benchers to have some power over these matters?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that these are not matters that can be resolved this afternoon. The motions have been tabled and they are in line with the Standing Orders. It is not a matter for the Chair what the Chairmen's Panel decides to debate when it meets next. The hon. Gentleman is right that these matters have to be put today, but his points are now on the record and will be thought through by those people who need to consider such matters.

Greg Knight: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Cannot my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) find some consolation in the fact that, as a matter of procedure, these motions are votable?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, that is correct.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on:
	(a) the Motion in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to Regional Select Committee (London) not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; and
	(b) the Motions in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to Standing Orders Etc. (Machinery of Government Changes) and Parliamentary Pensions not later than five o'clock;
	such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.( Barbara Keeley.)

Shailesh Vara: We have the extraordinary situation in which we are discussing a business motion, but a substantial part of the business has already been withdrawn by the Government. Given that the motion to establish a Select Committee on the reform of the House was withdrawn yesterdaythe same day that it was tabledthe House will have much more time than it would otherwise have had to discuss the remaining motions.
	May I put on the record my agreement with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and say that it is regrettable that we will not have the opportunity to debate the motions on the Regional Committees, especially as there has been no consultation on them? That means that Members will have more than enough time to make their views plain on the proposal to establish a Regional Select Committee for London, as well as to comment on the motion to change the Select Committee structure that follows the recent reshuffle and consequential changes to Departments.
	I see no reason why we will not have enough time to consider the proposal to have a Science and Technology Committee, a point that was made at last week's business questions by many hon. Members. We should also have more than enough time to debate the motion and amendment on parliamentary pensions. Following the Government's U-turn last night on their proposals, we all look forward to the Leader of the House explaining her new position. It is not the intention of the Opposition to put the business motion to a Division, but this motion shows the Government's complete disarray.

Barbara Keeley: There will be great rejoicing that there is so much support for and interest in the Regional Grand Committees in motions 6 to 13. That underlines the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has been makingthat Members on both sides of the House should take part in Regional Committees and ensure that all those initiatives, including the Grand Committees, go forward as robustly as possible and extend regional accountability, which I am sure we all support.
	My right hon. and learned Friend gave several answers at business questions on the issue of the parliamentary reform Committee. We are moving ahead on a consensual basis, in consultation with all interested parties, and we hope to bring forward an agreed resolution as soon as possible. The motion on the science Committee is included in the next motion on the Order Paper.

Christopher Chope: I had not intended to participate in this debate, but in the light of the incredibly disingenuous remarks from the Deputy Leader of the House, I shall do so. Surely she would accept that the way to ensure consultation with people in the regions is to consult Members to see whether the dates proposed for the meetings of these Grand Committees are convenient. The substantive motions are not debatable, so perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask the Deputy Leader of the HouseI would be happy to give way to herto explain why the dates chosen are reasonable

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is widening the debate a little too far. It is not his fault, because both Front Benchers have led him astray, but I would be grateful if he would now confine his remarks to the motion.

Christopher Chope: The motions curtail the debate today to 5 pm at the latest, when the Divisions will take place. However, I understand that the Government intend to accept the amendment on motion 5, which means that there will be a potential gap between 5 pm and 6 pmperhaps even a longer gap if the debate finishes earlyduring which time it would be possible to discuss other issues.

Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that the time necessary to debate these matters could have been much less if proper consultation had taken place beforehand?

Christopher Chope: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Consultation is the key, and it is clear that it is not taking place between occupants of the Front Benches or with Back Benchers on key procedural matters. If the Deputy Leader of the House is too stubborn to admit that she has made a mistake on this occasion, perhaps she will reflect on the fact that this is causing immense disquiet among Back Benchers, who feel left out of the loop. They have been presented with a fait accomplithe motions cannot be amendedand are frustrated to note that the Government are wasting the House's time at the same time as they are forcing legislation through on tight timetables.
	I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will agree that these are issues of immense gravity and seriousness, and go to the heart of the question of whether this is a Chamber of the legislature or just somewhere for the Executive to do their own thing.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Regional Select Committee (London)

Harriet Harman: I beg to move,
	That Standing Order No. 152F be amended by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:
	(1A) A select committee shall be appointed for London, to examine the Government's regional policies for London and the Government's relationship with the Greater London Authority and regional bodies.
	The establishment of Regional Select Committees has been the topic of extensive debate and consideration in this House, and this is a planned addition to those Committees that are already up and running on an experimental basis for the remainder of this Parliament. The background is that in November 2008, the House decided to put in place an effective and visible improvement in the scrutiny and democratic accountability of the public agencies and public policies that operate in the eight English regions outside London.
	In Scotland and Wales, and in every region in England there are important public agencies spending billions of pounds. These are public bodies spending public money in the public interest, and it is right that they should be publicly accountable, through this House, to the region they serve.

Mark Field: Does the Leader of the House not understand that many Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, who represent seats in the capitalas we both dofeel that this Committee will be a ludicrous talking shop? We already have full scrutiny by 33 local authorities, the Greater London assembly and the Mayor. In one sense, we also have scrutiny by the Government office for London, which still exists, more than nine years into the mayoralty. What purpose can a Select Committee really have?

Harriet Harman: As I shall say as I proceed with my comments, although there are different levels of accountabilitythe London boroughs, the Mayor and the London assemblythere is also an accountability gap, which this Select Committee is necessary to fill. To put it honestly, it was the Conservatives who thought there should be no London-wide accountability at all and abolished the Greater London council. This Government brought accountability back to London through the London assembly, and strengthened it still further with the Mayor. We still think there is an accountability gap, which the Select Committee is necessary to fill.

Jacqui Lait: Will the right hon. and learned Lady give way?

Harriet Harman: I will give way to the hon. Lady, who was no doubt in the vanguard of plans to abolish the GLC.

Jacqui Lait: I think most Conservatives are still pleased that the GLC went. Will the right hon. and learned Lady please list those bodies in London that are not already scrutinised by the Greater London authorityother than the Government office for London, which should of course be scrutinised by the relevant Departmentthat this Regional Select Committee should consider?

Harriet Harman: If the hon. Lady will bear with me, that is exactly what I intend to do as I set out the case for a Regional Select Committee for London.
	As I have said, when public bodies spend public money in the public interest, they need to be publicly accountable through this House to the region they serve. In the face of a global economic crisis affecting every region, the work of Regional Select Committees is even more important so that we can ensure that public policy to take action to protect businesses and jobs is effective, and so that we can be sure that taxpayers' money is being used in the most effective way. Without Regional Select Committees, there is an accountability gap at regional level.

Susan Kramer: Will the right hon. and learned Lady give way?

Harriet Harman: I will. However, I know that the hon. Lady's party is refusing to take part in any of the Regional Select Committees, so it will not surprise mealthough it will be disappointingif she, too, joins the voices against a Regional Select Committee for London.

Susan Kramer: The right hon. and learned Lady entirely anticipates my view. Will she explain why the accountability gap cannot be filled by using the existing bodies, rather than creating yet another Committee, as too many cooks are the best way to ensure that real accountability fails?

Harriet Harman: If the hon. Lady will let me get on with my speech, I shall answer that question.
	On 12 November 2008, the House agreed that there should be a Regional Select Committee for each of the administrative regions in England, except for London. London has been treated differently because London has different governance from the other regions, including different levels of accountability to elected representatives. I point out to London Members that Wales and Scotland also have Select Committees and Grand Committees in addition to their devolved Assemblies.

Justine Greening: They also have Welsh questions and Scottish questions, so why not fill the accountability gap with London questions?

Harriet Harman: If a London Grand Committee is established in addition, it will certainly be possible to hold the Minister for London to account. Indeed, it is possible for all London Members to ask questions of Government Ministers about London issueswhether those Ministers are in the Home Office or the Department of Healthand they do.
	We took the view that the different governance arrangements in London warranted further consideration in the light of the experience of the other Regional Select Committees. We felt that that consideration and further consultation should take place before we came to the House with this proposal. Before and during the debate, Members, as well as those outside the House, made representations to me for a London Select Committee and I committed to bringing forward proposals to the House, following further consultation.

Karen Buck: I welcome this initiative. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that a Regional Select Committee should not attempt to cover the same ground as the Greater London authority, which has an important scrutiny role in relation to the Mayor? London has some very definite regional characteristics relating to its public services and labour market, and it is very important that we should be able not just to question the Minister, but to do some in-depth work to investigate these problems and to make representations about regional interests.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Select Committee needs to fill that accountability gap. Of course, we support the work of the London boroughs and they should be working actively on the economy and employment issues that she mentioned. We set up the Greater London authority and we brought forward the legislation for a Mayor for London. Far from undermining their roles, we want to strengthen accountability in London. There remains a gap, and the Select Committee will fill it.

Christopher Chope: Will the right hon. and learned Lady give way?

Harriet Harman: I will press on with my speech, if I may.
	Since March 2009, Regional Select Committees have been undertaking their work. Following the agreement of the House, all the Committees have been set up, they have members and they have selected Chairs. All have announced their first inquiries. All are considering some aspect of the recession's effect on the regional economy, and the response of Government and agencies to that. They have completed the written evidence stages and are now hearing oral evidence. By the summer recess, the Committees will have held some 20 public evidence sessions.
	One important aspect of the work of these Committees is their capacity to take evidence from a wide range of stakeholders in the specific region, achieving important locally focused engagement. Meetings have taken place across the English regions under the purview of the Regional Select Committeesfor example, in Barnsley, Liverpool, Reading, Gateshead and Swindon.
	Many regional organisations, such as the regional branches of the Federation of Small Businesses, the regional organisation of the CBI, the citizens advice bureaux and the learning and skills councils, together with representatives of industry and banking, have appeared before the Regional Select Committees to offer their expert opinions on how their region is coping with the downturn, the effectiveness of public policy in the region and what is needed to support the recovery in that region. Key Government agencies with a role in delivering the Government response to the recession, such as the regional development agencies and Government offices, and regional Ministers, have also contributed to the investigations undertaken by the Committees.
	We look forward to the reports from the Regional Select Committees in the coming weeks and months, and to considering how the relevant lessons learned from across the country can help to ensure effective accountability of both policy and spending in the face of the current economic difficulties and that, for the people in each region, the necessary effective action is delivered.
	In the light of the experience of the Committees, it is now right to bring forward the motion to establish a Select Committee for London. We propose that the London Select Committee should have the same powers and composition as those of the other Select Committees for the regions. As I said, there are different governance arrangements in London, such as an elected Mayor and the London assembly. Some of the regional bodies, such as Transport for London and the London Development Agency, are accountable to the Mayor and subject to scrutiny from the assembly. However, there are many important areas of national policy on public services that impact on Londonincluding health, and crime reductionand are the responsibility of Ministers as well as the London boroughs.
	The Government retain considerable responsibility for delivery by many key agencies and non-departmental public bodies operating in London, including NHS London, the learning and skills council, Jobcentre Plus and Her Majesty's Courts Service and Prison Service. Although we acknowledge the differences between London and other regions, London should not be denied the opportunity afforded to other regions to hold such bodies to account, on Londoners' behalf, through their Members of Parliament.

Andrew Dismore: A very good example of that is the current review of acute stroke and major trauma services going on within NHS London, in which the boroughs are advancing different positions. It is a regional issue that is below the radar of the Select Committee on Health, but is it not an ideal example of how a London Committee could do some value-added work to hold NHS London to account and check whether those proposals are indeed in the interests of Londoners?

Harriet Harman: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As a Member of Parliament for a London constituency, I know that there are issues on which London MPs, working through a Select Committee, could achieve greater accountability on my constituents' behalf. Health issues, for example, inevitably cross constituency boundaries. They do not fall within the purview of the London boroughs and are not the responsibility of the assembly. On their own, they would justify the work of a Regional Select Committee, so I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.
	The motion has been subject to consultation with hon. Members, the Mayor of London and his office, the London assembly and the London boroughs, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for London, whom I am glad to see is here for the debate. It is clear that there is no consensus about the value of a London Select Committee, even though it would not duplicate the scrutiny that already exists. Instead, it would complement that scrutiny by focusing on the impact of Government policies in London, including the work of the Government office for London and the regional bodies.
	The motion establishes the Committee only for the lifetime of this Parliament. At the end of that time, there would be an opportunity to review the London Committeeif we set it up, which I hope we willand all the other Regional Committees to see how they have worked. Opposition Members are being intransigent if they are not prepared to allow the Regional Select Committees to be established even on an experimental basis until the end of the Parliament.
	I hope that hon. Members will reflect on the matter and support a Regional Select Committee to hold Government organisations to account on behalf of Londoners. I commend the motion to the House.

Justine Greening: The motion returns us to a subjectthe establishment of Regional Select Committeesthat the House has debated at some length already. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is no longer in his place, but we heard his concerns about how these proposals are being rolled out. I do not want to reprise the earlier debate about establishing Regional Select Committees across the rest of the country, as I want to focus on London, but I shall give a brief rundown of the various concerns expressed.
	The first concern was that Regional Select Committees would cost a lot of money and that there were better alternatives. Secondly, concerns were expressed about their composition and the fact that there was no mechanism allowing MPs not from a particular region to be on that region's Committee. The same concern has been expressed in respect of London, but people were worried above all that the Regional Select Committees' work would duplicate the important work done by the 41 Select Committees that already exist. We have similar concerns about a London Regional Select Committee.
	The Leader of the House said that the objective was to fill an accountability gap. We all recognise London's unique devolution settlement, and we agreed that there was an accountability gap in other parts of the country, but we did not believe that that problem could be solved by setting up a new Regional Select Committee to go alongside the unaccountable regional development agencies, regional assemblies and all the other quangos that we have at regional level. We believe that the solution is to make sure that all the decisions taken by those bodies should be taken further down in local government. Regional Select Committees would not then have to look at those matters, as they would be scrutinised and decided at a much more local level than is currently the case.
	As the Leader of the House said, London has a unique devolution settlement. We are now on our second directly elected Mayor, and the London assembly has its own elected members. They must feel that the move to set up a London Regional Select Committee is a vote of no confidence by Ministers in the assembly's ability to scrutinise London and its Mayor.

Karen Buck: We have spent the past few weeks in an intense debate about how to strengthen the scrutiny role of Members of Parliament and this Chamber. I fail to understand how the hon. Lady's objections to the proposed Committee square with the desire of her party leaders to ensure that Members of Parliament can be more active in holding Ministers and those who run public services to account.

Justine Greening: I suppose that I have two responses to that. First, Back Benchers can hold Ministers to account: as an Opposition Back Bencher, I think that I can hold Ministers to account on London issues such as Heathrow as well as anyone. Secondly, although the hon. Lady is right that we need more accountability, why can we not get that through having London questions? Why spend several hundred thousand pounds on a Regional Select Committee for London when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, people want not another talking shop but direct and immediate representation, with hon. Members being able to ask questions and get answers? Surely we should be trying that first to see whether it works.

Lee Scott: An example was given earlier about health and London's stroke services. Does my hon. Friend agree that the people best placed to scrutinise such matters would be the health committees of the London boroughs? They deal with such matters daily, in liaison with Members of Parliament. Surely they would be best placed to scrutinise what is going on.

Justine Greening: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend.

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Lady mentioned having a London Question Time, but she will be aware that in such sessions a Member asking a question gets only one supplementary, and that only two or three supplementary questions will be asked from around the House on any particular matter. A good contrast to illustrate the point is provided by the Liaison Committee's questioning of the Prime Minister. Instead of the half-hour bun fight that we have on Wednesday afternoons, the Liaison Committee gets the Prime Minister for two and a half hours, which means that we can develop themes in great detail and question him at length. We simply could not do the same in a London Question Time.

Justine Greening: Approximately 60-plus MPs will not be able to be part of any London Regional Select Committee because it will have only nine members. A London MP who does not belong to that Regional Select Committee will not have the same opportunities as would be provided by a London Question Time.
	If the objective is to scrutinise policy as it affects London, that is already fulfilled by existing Select Committees, as some of the reports undertaken over the past five years or so demonstrate. For example, the Transport Committee has produced reports on the London congestion charge and the performance of London Underground, while the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has done one on the London Olympics. The former Education and Skills Committee did a report on skills in London, while the Home Affairs Committee has produced a report on counter-terrorism and community relations in the aftermath of the London bombings. Only a couple of weeks ago, we were in this Chamber debating the report from the Home Affairs Committee on knife crime that had a clear resonance for London. There is nothing to prevent Select Committees from looking at London issues where they are of real importance, and they do that already.

David Burrowes: Does not the intervention by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) illustrate the Government's wrong-headed approach to the proposal for a London Regional Select Committee? Mention has been made of having a London Question Time, but should not any concern about scrutiny be addressed by the London assembly, which should ensure that its structures and procedures in that regard are robust? If scrutiny in areas such as health needs to be improved, should that not be devolved to the London boroughs?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is another option for tackling the problem that the Government say exists, but is not the Mayor already accountable to Parliament? He is directly accountable to Londoners, of course, and he is also scrutinised by the London assembly, but he is also summoned here regularly to be held to account by Select Committees. Even the previous Mayor was up in front of Select Committees seven times in eight years, when he was asked about a whole range of issues. The new Mayor has been in place for just over a year, but in that short period he has already appeared before five Select Committees. Clearly, therefore, MPs can scrutinise what the Mayor is doing through topical investigations by existing Select Committees, and they can also question him directly.
	People in city hall will probably look at this debate and feel that it is a little top down. A lot of debate goes on here about issues that really matter to London, and yet the assembly and the Mayor must wonder why they cannot summon MPs. For example, we voted here about post office closures after Londoners had made it clear that they wanted the closure programme to end. The Mayor and London assembly must wonder why they cannot summon MPs and relevant Ministers about such matters, or why the Secretary of State for Transport cannot be summoned to explain the decision to go ahead with the expansion of Heathrow, even though it goes against what Londoners want.
	Why are Ministers trying to undermine the London assembly? As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) says, one of the options should be further to strengthen the London assembly, but we hear no discussion of thateverything is top-down.

Clive Efford: One of the arguments that the hon. Lady makes about a London Committee is based on the inaccurate information she has just given about post office closures across London. If we had had the opportunity to scrutinise such proposals as a London-wide body, we might have had more success in protecting post offices. Is she seriously saying that as a London Member of Parliament she does not want a say on strategic issues that involve a number of Departments, and possibly the Mayor and city hall as well, and to come up with reports to try to guide the Government and the Mayor in the direction the people we represent want us to take?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman seeks to create a mish-mash of democracy where MPs would be attempting slightly to play the role of London assembly members. London assembly members are unable ultimately to scrutinise all the matters that affect London, but what we need to do is make the existing structure work better. Those are not my words but those of London Councils when they were consulted. The Leader of the House was right when she said that there had not been consensus. London Councils said:
	In principle London Councils believes that increased local accountability can be better achieved by broadening the scope of existing scrutiny mechanisms.
	Apparently, that view was ignored; yet again, top-down management from the Government.
	I shall draw my comments to a close. Ministers must realise that the electorate's concern right now is not just about the quality of government, and its quantityof course there is too much of that; a plethora of unaccountable regional government tiers has been set up. There is also concern about the quality of our democracy.

David Evennett: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. One of the things I have tried to get the Leader of the House to do is to hold an annual debate on London, just as we have a debate on Wales on St. David's day. Would that not be another way for us to raise London issues and put our concerns on record, rather than having the costs and administration of a new Committee?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is quite right. That would be yet another option for ensuring that London MPs could hold to account people who are taking decisions that affect Londoners, but of course it is probably too good an idea to be considered by the Government because they are so wedded to their costly, duplicative and interfering Regional Select Committee approach that they seem hell-bent on taking it no matter how much it costs and how ineffective it will be.

Christopher Chope: I feel entitled to participate in the debate because I was born in Putney and was a great supporter of the abolition of the Greater London council. Does my hon. Friend think that underlying the motion is the Government's state of denial, because they were defeated in the recent London mayoral election?

Justine Greening: I did not want to make the debate excessively political because I think that at heart the approach is structurally wrong for accountability whichever Mayor and whichever Government are in power. However, my hon. Friend is right to touch on that point. What concerns me about the proposals is that they feel like the politicisation of Select Committees, which have always been independent of the Executive. That has always been their biggest strength.
	It feels to me as though the Leader of the House, like so many of her Cabinet colleagues, is merely shifting the deckchairs on the Labour Government Titanic. The biggest danger is that the proposals could undermine the effectiveness of our local devolution in London, through the Mayor and the London assembly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, Londoners had their say in the mayoral election last year. Now, like the rest of the country, we want to have our say about the accountability gap, which is real, but a general election will fill that gap, not a London Regional Select Committee. We have elected our Mayor, now we want the chance to elect new MPs and a Prime Minister who actually has a real mandate.

Andrew Dismore: I certainly welcome the proposals, which are long overdue. We should have considered them six months ago when the other Regional Select Committees were being proposed. It is a regrettable oversight that the London Committee was not proposed at the time, and I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for listening to the representations made by my hon. Friends and me that London should be included in the programme of Regional Committees.
	The Opposition put a false dichotomy. From my point of view, the more we scrutinise the activities of the Government and Government bodies, the better. I see no objection to a London Question Time; it is a good idea. I see no objection to an annual debate on London; that is a good idea, too. Indeed, when I was first elected, we used to have an annual debate on policing in Londonusually on a Friday morning, but it was welcome nevertheless. However, there is no reason why, having accepted and indeed agreed with those propositions, we should not also have a Select Committee for London, because there is no doubt that there is a significant accountability gap for various bodies for which the Government are responsible.

Angela Watkinson: Can the hon. Gentleman envisage the London Select Committee, were it to be in place, considering a matter that had been devolved to the London assembly and reaching a different conclusion from the assembly? There would thus be two separate bodies with different conclusions about how a policy should be set, or how a matter should be resolved. What would be the pecking order between the London Select Committee and the London assembly?

Andrew Dismore: It would be most unlikely that the Select Committee would want to look at something that was entirely devolved to the London assembly, although we might find that there were areas of joint or overlapping responsibility. Of course, it is possible to come to a different conclusion, but that does not necessarily mean that different conclusions should not be reached or considered. Think-tanks in the outside world come to different conclusions. There is nothing wrong with that; it helps to inform debate and, ultimately, leads to better decision making when different points of view are expressed after detailed consideration.
	The hon. Lady is right; there may be different conclusions. For example, there are significant overlapping responsibilities on housing policy. There are the Mayor's responsibilities. He has just published his draft housing strategy, with which I profoundly disagree, signally on the abolition of targets for affordable homes. The boroughs have housing policies, some of which are in conflict with the Mayor because the boroughs are trying to negotiate different numbers. There is the Government's overarching strategy to try to provide decent, affordable homes for the people of London. The role of the Homes and Communities Agency, a central Government body, is vital in that operation. Indeed, a round of negotiations is going on between my borough and the HCA to try to get the money needed to support some of the regeneration schemes, which have run into the sand for reasons that I will not go into now. It would be helpful if a London Select Committee could call Mr. Bob Kerslake to discuss the policies of his agency towards London. It has actually been very difficult for us to get hold of him to discuss some of the issues.
	Earlier, I mentioned the NHS London consultation, which has just closed, on proposals for acute trauma and stroke servicesif we can call it consultation, and I have been quite critical of it. The proposals were of major interest in each of our boroughs, which have advanced different positions. For example, there are proposals for four major trauma units. The fourth will be at either the Royal Free or St. Mary's, and there are significant differences across London about which should be chosen. Indeed, some people argue whether four is the right number.
	Similarly, in relation to stroke services, there is a strong argument about whether the eight places selected are the right ones for hyper-units and, again, whether eight is the right number. The best way of dealing with that issue would be to call Ruth Carnall and the other people at the top of NHS London who are involved to give evidence to a London Select Committee and answer those very detailed questions.

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman and I are as one on the importance of stroke services and major trauma centres, but he has not explained why a London Select Committee will be more effective in highlighting those issues than the Greater London assembly, which his Government created.

Andrew Dismore: Because the NHS is a central Government serviceI would have thought that that answer was self-evident. The NHS is accountable to the House, like the Government, but it is only indirectly accountable to the GLA and the London assembly. Borough scrutiny committees will of course examine health issues, but only from the perspective of their individual borough. The hon. Lady will know that Barnet, which we represent, has formed a particular view, but that is very different from Hammersmith's view. How can those differences of view be reconciled except through an overarching inquiry by a pan-London Select Committee of the House that scrutinises officials and holds them to account? Such a Committee will be able to call officials such as Ruth Carnall and the medical experts who have been giving opinions as part of the consultation. Indeed, they could be held to account for the appalling way in which the consultation has been conducted.

Theresa Villiers: One advantage that the GLA would have over a London Select Committee when scrutinising such matters is that its members would have been elected by Londoners, whereas I understand that a London Select Committee could have members from all over the country.

Andrew Dismore: I hope that would be very unlikely. If the motion on membership of the Committee included a plethora of non-London Members, I for one would not vote for it, and I doubt that the hon. Lady would either. I, like her, have certainly been elected by Londoners.

Jacqui Lait: May I dig a little deeper into the Select Committee's role that the hon. Gentleman envisages? Following the ongoing consultation on stroke and trauma, is he suggesting that after the strategic health authority's board reaches a conclusion, it could be overruled by the Select Committee? In such circumstances, would the SHA have a role as the body that should make decisions about London health, or would it be subservient to the London Committee?

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Lady knows that that is not the constitutional position. Members of the House are not the Executive, but the legislature. In that context, London's SHA is part of government and must be held to account for the decisions that it makes. It would not be for the Select Committee to overrule the SHA, but it would be able to express its views and opinions to influence the debate and the decision-making process. The ultimate decision would be taken by Health Ministers and the SHA, but it would be the job of London Memberscollectively, through the Select Committeeto inform the debate.
	The hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) talked about post office closures in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). I have no axe to grind because I was one of the rebels on post office closure, but it is important to bear it in mind that responsibility for post offices lay with Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Ministers at that time. The London Committee could have held BERR Ministers to account and discussed policies on post office closures with them, and then the Committee could have formed a view. That could not have been achieved in any other way except through the much wider debate on post office closures, which was very difficult to participate in because many Members wished to speak.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) talked about employment policy. We all accept that London's economy is different from the rest of the country's. London faces challenging economic circumstances and, in the light of what has happened in the City, the problems facing its labour market are completely different from those in other parts of the country. Neither the Treasury Committee nor the Work and Pensions Committee is holding an inquiry into London's job market, but the London Committee would probably want to examine the way in which Government policy affects London's labour market in the City and throughout the wider city. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), such an inquiry could involve working with the London Development Agency and the GLA, but given that economic policy is a matter for central Government, a London Committee should hold central Government Ministers to account on their policy for London.

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting case. He says that economic policy in London is fairly and squarely a matter for the House, so he must be unaware of the huge amount of work being done under the Mayor's auspices in city hall to determine what can be done to help Londoners and London's economy to navigate their way through the recession. His suggestion sounds like an absolute duplication of what the London assembly and the Mayor are trying to deliver for London.

Andrew Dismore: I do not think that the hon. Lady was listening to what I said. I was giving an example of complementary responsibility. I cited the NHS to illustrate something that is central Government's responsibility, but I was picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Upminster and setting out an area of overlap. I fully accept that the GLA and the Mayor's office are examining some of these policies, but responsibility for the economy lies with Treasury Ministers, and we can hold Ministers to account through the Select Committee process in a way that the GLA cannot. That is why it is important that we establish the Committee although, of course, there would be no reason why the Committee could not take account of work carried out elsewhere. We must, however, recognise where the responsibility lies.

Justine Greening: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I think that he is forgetting to whom he is accountable. If we asked any owner of a small shop whether they would prefer money to be spent on a Regional Committee that reports on the recession in London, but duplicates all the work of the Mayor and the GLA, or spent on directly supporting shops, they would probably go for the latter. He talks about this as though it is an interest point and a study programme, but we are meant to be representing our constituents and working alongside other tiers of government. He suggests going far beyond that with a structure that will be sheer duplication and will cost taxpayers money that they cannot afford.

Andrew Dismore: I disagree with the hon. Lady. The same would be true if we asked anyone whether they would like money spent on one thing rather than another. Given the reputation of the House in the outside world, people would probably suggest abolishing the lot of us and spending the money on something else, but that is not really the answer to the point. We are trying to develop effective scrutiny.
	I see that time is running out, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. I believe that the proposed Committee will be a valuable addition to the scrutiny of policy affecting London and Londoners.

Tom Brake: Hon. Members will be familiar with the background to the setting up of Regional Select Committees and the crucial vote on their composition, which was won with a Cabinet Minister's casting vote. The Leader of the House knows that my party does not object in principle to the establishment of Regional Committees or the London Committee, but we object to the composition agreed by the Government. We also have doubts about the ability of Regional Committees and the London Committee to do their job of holding Government agencies and quangos to account.
	The process cannot work without real consultationmy hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) gave an example of a complete lack of consultation during business questionsor when Members in a region are not represented in the right proportion on a Regional Select Committee. I acknowledge that the London Committee will be one of the fewif not the onlyRegional Committee whose membership, albeit completely by chance, reflects the proportion of MPs in the region. The process certainly cannot work effectively if, as is the case on other Regional Committees, a Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary is holding that Minister to account. That is not a way of ensuring that regional quangos and other bodies are scrutinised effectively, as it clearly involves a significant conflict of interest. The Leader of the House talks about Opposition intransigence, but she would do better to consider whether there is intransigence on the part of the Government and an unwillingness to be flexible about the composition of the Regional Committees. The Liberal Democrats therefore cannot agree to the establishment of the London Regional Committee. As I have stated, I acknowledge that the composition of the London Committee would roughly reflect the number of MPs of different parties across London, but that has happened by accident, rather than design.
	The second reason why we have serious reservations about the establishment of the London Select Committee is that we, like the Government, wanted a transfer of powers when the Greater London authority was set up. Indeed, we wanted a more significant transfer of powers to the Mayor and the London assembly than there has been. In many ways, that would have done away with the need for a Regional Select Committee, because the Mayor and the assembly would have held more powers, so the scrutiny role would have been undertaken by the assembly. It would have had a wider range of powers and responsibilities to consider, so there would have been even less demand for a London Regional Select Committee. However, I accept that certain areas of Government policy would remain within the remit or control of the national Government, rather than the London government. Hon. Members have referred to health; there is no reason why significant health powers could not be delivered at a London region level, rather than provided by national Government locally in London. If so, it would have made sense for the assembly to conduct scrutiny at that London level.
	We have the same concerns as others do about the duplication that is taking place. When the London assembly and the Mayor's powers were set up, the expectation was that the Government office for London would go, but its powers and budget seem to have increased, rather than decreased. There is no end in sight to the duplication that arises as a result of the Government office for London remaining in place after the creation of the assembly and of the London Mayor's powers.
	If there is an issue relating to scrutiny, by all means let us look at whether the assembly needs additional powers; it could also propose additional powers itself. There may be issues to do with the extent to which it carries out its scrutiny role, particularly as regards the London Development Agency and the 100 million that may or may not be missing. If there are issues, I am sure that they can be addressed. Other hon. Members have made sensible suggestions about having a London Question Time or an annual debate in the House about London.
	Members who have been in the House as long as I have, or roughly as long, will know that in earlier years, but not so much in the past couple of years, we had a series of one-and-a-half-hour Adjournment debates on London issues, on subjects such as the police or health. That seems to have died down, partly, I suspect, as a result of the transfer of powers to the London assembly and the Mayor. London Members do not feel quite as engaged, or that they have as much responsibility, as they did prior to the implementation of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. However, there are other ways in which we can boost scrutiny, and give Members greater oversight of the matters that are still of interest to them in London, without setting up a London Regional Select Committee.

Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the scrutiny role, and to the role of powers. It is not clear whether the London Select Committee would have any powers at all, or whether it would simply be a scrutiny body. It is difficult to see how it could influence decision making in this place, in the London assembly, or in any other public body, unless it had powers. However, if it had powers it would be creating duplication, as he rightly said.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. My assumption is that the London Select Committee would have the same powers as every other Select Committee; in other words, it would have the power to make recommendations and to bring Ministers to appear before it. However, in practice, as we Members all know, if the Government, or possibly the Mayor or the London assembly, choose to disregard those recommendations, there is nothing that we Members can do about it, apart from draw attention to it in debate and so on. I agree that that is a valid point to which Ministers need to respond.
	To conclude, there are no guarantees about the London Select Committee's composition, and there is not clarity about what scrutiny it will provide that is not provided by the London assembly. Until that clarity is there, the proposal cannot be allowed to proceed.

Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 132.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Standing Order No. 152F be amended by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:
	(1A) A select committee shall be appointed for London, to examine the Government's regional policies for London and the Government's relationship with the Greater London Authority and regional bodies.

Standing Orders etc. (Machinery of Government Changes)

[Relevant documents:  The Fourth Special Report from the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills  Committee, on the future of science scrutiny following the merger of DIUS and  BERR, HC 662. ]

Barbara Keeley: I beg to move,
	That, with effect from 1 October 2009, the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders:
	 A. SELECT COMMITTEES RELATED TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
	(1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows
	(a) leave out items 1 and 11; and
	(b) insert, in the appropriate places, the following items:
	
		
			 Business, Innovation and Skills Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 11 
			 Science and Technology Government Office for Science 14 
		
	
	 B. RELATED PROVISIONS
	(2) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees in this Parliament in respect of the Business and Enterprise Committee and of the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee shall be deemed to have been in respect of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Science and Technology Committee, respectively.
	(3) That for the purposes of Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairmen of select committees) the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Science and Technology Committee shall be deemed to be the same committees as the Business and Enterprise and Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, respectively.
	 C. LIAISON COMMITTEE
	(4) That the Resolution of the House of 13 July 2005 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be further amended by leaving out, in paragraph (2), 'Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform' and 'Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills' and inserting, in the appropriate places, 'Business, Innovation and Skills' and 'Science and Technology'.
	 D. EUROPEAN COMMITTEES
	(5) That Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended, by leaving out in the Table in paragraph (6) in respect of European Standing Committee C, 'Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform' and 'Innovation, Universities and Skills' and inserting 'Business, Innovation and Skills'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following: Motion 5 Parliamentary Pensions
	That this House endorses a package of changes to the Parliamentary pension scheme, backdated to 1 April 2009, which is judged by the Government Actuary to make savings equivalent to 2.9 per cent. of payroll, thus capping the Exchequer contribution at 28.7 per cent., consisting of
	(1) an increase in member contribution rates
	(a) from 10 to 11.9 per cent. for a pension building up to an accrual rate of 1/40th of final salary for each year of service,
	(b) from 6 to 7.9 per cent. for a pension building up to an accrual rate of 1/50th, and
	(c) from 5.5 to 5.9 per cent. for a pension building up to an accrual rate of 1/60th; and
	(2) the application of the scheme's maximum pension limit of two-thirds of final salary to all scheme members for future service.
	 Amendment (a) , at end add
	'and calls on the Leader of the House to bring forward further proposals which will cap the Exchequer contribution for 200910 at its 200809 level.'

Barbara Keeley: On the machinery of Government changes, the House will be aware that when changes are made to the structure of Departments, a Government motion is needed to make the necessary consequential changes to the structure of departmental Select Committees. The motion therefore reflects the creation on 5 June of the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which takes on the responsibilities of the former Departments for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and for Innovation, Universities and Skills. Shortly after the new Department was created, the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills published a report recommending the re-establishment of a Select Committee on Science and Technology. That reflected the final recommendation of the former Science and Technology Committee, which was abolished in 2007, when the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills was created.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House received a letter in support of the proposal from the chief executives of the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Institute of Physics, the Institute of Biology and the Royal Academy of Engineering and from the executive secretary of the Royal Society. I am pleased to say that the Government accept the Committee's recommendation. The motion provides for the re-establishment of a Science and Technology Committee as part of the family of departmental Select Committees and it has a remit to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science.

Brian Iddon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in her speech and to the Government for having listened to the learned societies' call to re-establish the Science and Technology Committee. It is being re-established today, however, as a departmental Select Committee, whereas it was a free-standing Committee before, with cross-cutting oversight of all Departments, including outside agencies. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, despite the Committee being set up today as a departmental Select Committee, it will still have the remit of the former Science and Technology Committee?

Barbara Keeley: I shall address in due course the good point that my hon. Friend has just made.
	The motion and the steps to be taken reflect the position between 1992 and 2007, when the Science and Technology Committee was appointed to examine the work of the Office of Science and Technology, part of the old Department for Trade and Industry. The role of the Government Office for Science is somewhat narrower than that of the old Office of Science and Technology. Although the interpretation of the Committee's terms of reference is a matter for the Committee itself, the Government hope that it will take a wide-ranging approach to its remit, examining the full scope of science policy and related matters across the Government. That approach certainly worked well for the old Committee, which conducted inquiries into subjects as diverse as evidence-based policy making, classification of illegal drugs, regulation of hybrid embryos and the work of the research councils.
	There is an argument for establishing an explicitly cross-cutting Committee with its own Standing Order to examine such issues, and we are sympathetic to that idea, but at this stage in the Parliament, the new Committees can be expected to run for only seven months from October, so we think it right for us to revert to the old status quo, retaining the existing membership and chairmanship of the two Committees, but changing their titles and terms of reference.

Evan Harris: Like the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), I am a former member of the Science and Technology Committee and a member of the current Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee. I welcome what the Minister said, particularly her interpretation that it should be possible for the Committee to consider how science is dealt with across Government Departments. As she said, the focus on evidence-based policy making means that there is a role to play in scrutinising the Government carefully in respect of their treatment of evidence at large across Departments. That is one of the reasons why I welcome this motion today.

Barbara Keeley: That is another well-made point.
	The Government will, of course, be happy to reconsider the position in the next Parliament if the Committee's experience suggests that any change is needed.

Peter Luff: As Chair of the soon-to-be Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, may I say how much we welcome the pragmatic approach adopted by the Government on this issue? I promise my Committee's wholehearted and pragmatic support for the arrangements that the hon. Lady has outlined to the House this afternoon.

Barbara Keeley: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
	The second motion concerns pensions. Public service pension schemes must be affordable and sustainable in the long term. The cost of the parliamentary pension scheme has risen, mainly because of increased longevity. Today we are considering changes to the scheme that will limit the impact of that increase on the taxpayer.

Barry Gardiner: I entirely accept that the costs of the scheme should rise to reflect increased longevity. However, will the Minister explain the gearing effect of the three different regimes, which are based on accrual rates of one fortieth, one fiftieth and one sixtieth of final salary respectively? A Member would have to live for 3.54 years, 3.95 years and 4.76 years beyond retirement age to achieve the annual amount put in by the 5.9 per cent., 7.9 per cent. and 11.9 per cent. pensions respectively, given what their funds should have created in the meantime.

Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I cannot answer that off the top of my head. However, I will ensure that an answer to that specific question will reach him.

Christopher Chope: As the Minister will know, the issue of increasing pension costs because of longevity also applies to the police pension scheme. Why in the case of the police pension scheme will the whole cost of longevity be borne by the taxpayer rather than by the contributions of the police themselves?

Barbara Keeley: If the hon. Gentleman waits for the rest of what I am going to say, he will see that issues need to be resolved and discussed, and that a wider debate needs to be had. This short debate is probably not the time for that. I am happy to take interventions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but people will have time to make speeches this afternoon.

Nicholas Winterton: No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will pursue the matter of the police pension. I had correspondence with the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). She has replied on his behalf, confirming that the Treasury, as the employer of Members of Parliament, took a contribution holiday of 14 years from the parliamentary contributory pension scheme. The Minister confirmed that to me, but she did not say how much the taxpayer and the Treasury were saved as a result. How much has that holiday affected the deficit that the pension fund has recently faced?

Barbara Keeley: We can look at that issue in the wider debate as we go forward. However, as I have to keep emphasising, the key thing is not to go back in time. We are where we are in terms of the pension scheme. The real factor is that its cost is escalating because of longevity. There were both Labour and Conservative Governments between 1989 and 2003. The question was not about a pensions holiday, but about reducing the Exchequer contribution when there was a surplus. That situation does not pertain now. The key thing is for us to focus on the feelings of the public about their funding of our scheme. That is what I am really talking about today.

Barry Gardiner: rose

John Butterfill: rose

Barbara Keeley: I am not going to take any more interventions at the moment. My speech is short, but it is important that I get through it. We have until 5 o'clock, and I really must make progress.

Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) is chair of the trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund.

Barbara Keeley: Indeed; there are Members with great expertise in the Chamber, and I am sure that they will make their contributions. However, it is important that I lay out the position.
	The changes proposed in the motion before the House will cap the Exchequer contribution in line with the resolution of the House in January 2008. On 24 January 2008, the House endorsed the recommendation of the Senior Salaries Review Body that the cost to the Exchequer of the accrual of benefits should be limited to 20 per cent. of payroll. That figure excludes payments to pay off the deficit identified in the 2005 valuation of the fund; the two elements have been treated separately.
	The Government Actuary published his valuation of the scheme in March 2009, and he advised that the Exchequer contribution would need to increase from 26.8 per cent. to 31.6 per cent. of payroll if no other action was taken. As I mentioned, that is primarily because members of the scheme are living longer and pensions are therefore payable for longer. On 31 March this year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House announced in a written statement that the Exchequer contribution would be capped at 28.7 per cent. of payroll. That was in line with the recommendation of the Senior Salaries Review Body, as already endorsed by the House. My right hon. and learned Friend proposed a set of changes that would make the necessary savings of 2.9 per cent. of payroll, and proposed that those be backdated to 1 April 2009.
	The changes consist, first, of an increase in member contribution rates, which will yield a saving of 1.7 per cent. of payroll. Secondly, the scheme's maximum pension limit of two thirds of final salary is to be applied to all scheme members in future. That change will yield savings of 1.2 per cent. of payroll. The increase in member contribution rates will mean that scheme members will have a choice of paying 11.9 per cent. of salary for an accrual rate of one fortieth; 7.9 per cent. for an accrual rate of one fiftieth; or 5.9 per cent. for the new accrual rate of one sixtieth, which is coming in shortly. All those are laid out in the motion.
	The other proposed change will mean that, from 1 April 2009, no member of the scheme will be able to build up further benefits in excess of the two-thirds limit. Only a small number of scheme members can currently do so. It is important to make the point that, on average, an MP in the House serves just over 12 years. The motion therefore brings forward the interim measures necessary to cap the Exchequer contribution immediately, in line with the January 2008 resolution of the House.

Nicholas Winterton: The Minister has just mentioned a matter that has an impact on me, so I declare that interest.
	Will it be worth while for an MP over the age of 65, who has reached the maximum two thirds of final salary, to continue to contribute to the scheme, or will they in fact be making a contribution for no return? If there are to be limited returns, what will they be?

Barbara Keeley: The point is to set a limit so that people in that situation will not be able to accrue further benefits. The vast bulk of members of the scheme are those who have entered the House newly or in the past couple of Parliaments. The average service of an MP is just over 12 years, so as I have said, only a small number of members of the scheme are in that situation.  [Interruption.] I can get the hon. Gentleman a detailed answer to his question, but we are getting into a lot of detail, whereas I am laying out general principles. As I have said, the motion brings forward the interim measures necessary to cap the Exchequer contribution immediately, in line with the January 2008 resolution of the House.
	I believe that the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) supports the changes to the scheme put forward in the motion tabled by the Leader of the House. However, it calls on her to bring forward further proposals to cap the Exchequer contribution for this year at its 2008-09 level. Achieving a freeze in the Exchequer contribution at 2008-09 rates could involve a further increase in member contribution rates, an increase in pension age, some combination of the two, or other measures. There are a great number of possibilities that we could consider. Clearly, further analysis will be needed on the various options that would avoid an increase in the Exchequer contribution.
	We expect there to be more wide-ranging reform in the future. On 13 February this year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commissioned the Senior Salaries Review Body to conduct a fundamental review of pension provision for MPs, Ministers and other parliamentary office holders. I know that some of the right hon. and hon. Members who are in their places are starting to engage with that review. The Prime Minister asked for it to consider the full range of options for reducing the Exchequer contribution. Those options included, but were not restricted to, increases in the pension age, increases in members' contributions, changes in the accrual rate and a consideration of the overall merits of defined contribution or money purchase arrangements. We are considering the Government's evidence to the review, and we will make an announcement in due course.

Susan Kramer: Will the Minister indicate whether she proposes to accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb)?

Barbara Keeley: Members are running just ahead of where I am in my comments, and I will come to that in a moment. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.
	I have outlined the changes necessary to limit the impact on the taxpayer of increases in the cost of the parliamentary pension scheme. The interim measures in the motion will enact the earlier decisions made by the House to cap the Exchequer contribution. The Government were already considering further measures to avoid an increase in Exchequer contributions from the pre-April 2009 level. The amendment is consistent with that further consideration. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House is therefore content to return with further proposals to ensure that the Exchequer's contribution this year does not exceed that of last year. Because all these measures affect the current year, and because there are many detailed questions to answer, I am sure that it will assist Members to know the extent of their contributions to the scheme when we return to the debate. We will do that as soon as possible, and we will present all the various options that could make the freeze happen.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for giving the Government's position on these two motions. As she said, we are discussing the establishment of a dedicated Select Committee on science and some changes to the parliamentary pension scheme, to which an amendment has been tabled, primarily by the Liberal Democrats.
	The changes to the machinery of government in the last reshuffle were, I fear, made in a hurry, and in many respects for all the worst reasons. Because the Prime Minister did not have the power to change his top team as he wished, he had to satisfy a clash of ministerial egos by carving up a Department completely on the hoofso much so that some civil servants returned to their desks after lunch to find that their Department had been abolished in the meantime. As I am afraid is often the case in reshuffles, no serious thought was given to the implications for hugely important areas of policy on the back of the reshuffle that was suddenly conducted.
	In this case, I think we all accept that the biggest loser, apart from some individuals, was science. When the Prime Minister took up his post in July 2007, he broke up the Department for Trade and Industry and shoved science into the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. As a result, the Science and Technology Committee was abolished and subsumed into the wider Committee on that Department, despite the serious protestations and concerns of the science community.
	In the Prime Minister's latest Cabinet reshuffle, science became a bit of a plaything of the noble Lord Mandelson, and was seen right from the start as being just one part of an over-inflated and largely unaccountable department. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has 12 Ministers in all, half of whomincluding the supposed Science Ministerare not in this House. The latest report of the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills made it clear that because the Committee's remit was stretched so wide, it had struggled to give Government science policy the level of scrutiny that it deserved. The new DBIS Committee, being even larger, would have been totally unable to handle the scale of the issues at hand, as it will already have to deal with the Royal Mail and EU regulation, along with universities and measures to stimulate manufacturing.
	There are two reasons why it is particularly important at this time to scrutinise the Government's spending and activity on science and technology. First, as the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee said, there is a widespread view that British technology and its research and innovation can help us climb out of this recession. The weakness of the pound is providing a muchneeded boost for manufacturing opportunities. Although a weak pound is not good for everyone, the Government should be encouraging manufacturers to seize the initiative by investing in research and development. Secondly, science will be central to Britain's ability to respond to the major challenges of the future, from climate change to tackling swine flu or any other form of pandemic flu.
	The creation of a new Select Committee on Science and Technology is therefore an important step in holding the Government to account and ensuring that science policy is not merely a departmental addendum. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has been ardent in his campaigning for such a Committee. We welcome the decision and hope that the Committee will go about its work with all the energy and enthusiasm that this area of activity merits.
	Let me turn to pensions. The question of pensions generally is one of the most potent areas of public debate. Ten years ago we had some of the best pensions in the world; now we have some of the worst. The public sector seems to do far better than the private sector. In the private sector, which used to have many amply funded final salary schemes, the vast majority of schemes, if they have not closed already, are heading towards the closure that their funding now requires. In the middle of all that and all the difficulties that we have faced over the past few weeks, this House looks as though it has one of the most protected and generous schemes, compared with anybody else. We have the trustee of the scheme on our Benches this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who will go into the details more than me.

David Drew: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it: our pension scheme looks as though it is one of the most generous, but when we look into it, we see that it is no more generous than many other public sector schemes. If I was to retire at 60, I would receive no more money from the parliamentary scheme than I would have received from my other pension scheme, as a classroom teacher. We do ourselves a disservice by making it appear as though we have a very good, copper-bottomed pension scheme. It is a good scheme, but it is no better than many others in the public sector.

Alan Duncan: The House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. There are many arguments surrounding the scheme, many of which are difficult to put in the current climate of public opinion. By and large, the scheme would have been totally self-funding, had the Government not taken such a long contributions holiday. The Minister has today made the point that the tenure of Members, unlike others in the public sector, is quite short, at only 10 or 11 years. Indeed, the final salary is exactly the same in one's 30th year in this place as it is on the day one is first elected. In that sense, there is no progression through the ranks of seniority, which would otherwise dramatically add to the pay-out made.
	All those arguments are understood, but we have to accept that we are living at a time when, given the position in the public sector and the private sector, our pension scheme sticks out like a sore thumb. The policy of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is to wind up the scheme for new entrants. In the meantime time, however, we have to look at its funding, its benefits and its terms and conditions, to which end the Government have tabled their motion today.
	One element will be welcomed by the public, which is that we are going to contribute more out of our pay packets. However, there is another, unfortunate aspect, which is that we are in the middle of a number of changing forces, which would have made it better for the Government not to have tabled anything at all just at the moment. The trustees are looking at the scheme in detail, as is the Senior Salaries Review Body. In the middle of all that, the Government have tabled today's motion, but at the same time, they are asking the Exchequer to contribute more. That is what people find difficult.
	The Government could have looked at alternatives. The main reason, above all others, why the actuaries looked at the arithmetic and decided that the fund needs more money is that former membersand, as the predictions of the actuaries go, existing and future membersare living longer. The issue is longevity much more than it is the value of the fund. At a time when the Government intend to raise the state pension age, it looks odd that they have not considered, as their first priority, raising the age at which former members can benefit from the pay-out.

Barbara Keeley: The key point is that all those things were looked at, but two points pertain to today's debate. One is that we needed a simple interim measure to cap the Exchequer contribution, and that is what we have in today's motion. The Government have to enact the decision made earlier by the House. The second and most important point is that there was already a reviewthe Prime Minister asked the Senior Salaries Review Body for a review in Februaryso in some ways we are moving ahead on things ourselves, even though there is parallel action outside this place. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a great deal of work has been done, and that it will be possible to present a spread of options for hon. Members to review. We are aware that the SSRB is also undertaking its own review and taking evidence from hon. Members, and we would not wish to prejudge any recommendations that it might make.

Alan Duncan: Despite what the Deputy Leader of the House says, she should, in all honesty, admit that the Government have been rather clumsy about this. If he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, the chairman of the trustees, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West will be able to explain this in detail, but I am not confident that we have been consulted in the depth that the issue merits. So, something that was sprung on us by the Government has rather backfired, leading to their having to face the full wrath of the newspapers last night, and seeing what they were planning to write the next daythat is, todayforced them to change their mind about their attitude to this issue.
	So it is that the amendment tabled by the hon. Members for Northavon (Steve Webb) and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) appears to have been accepted by the Government, and taxpayers are not now going to face a demand for much greater contributions. With the amendment having been accepted by the Government, I sense that the whole House is likely to agree to proceed on that basis. Nevertheless, I very much hope that the Government will be less clumsy on this issue in the future.

David Heath: I shall deal first with the points about the machinery of government. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) has echoed things that I have repeatedly said in the past about the way in which the Government changes departmental nomenclature and reorganises desks and offices apparently on a whim, without any thought for the consequences of those moves. It worries me that we so regularly see changes to the structure of government Departments appear to be based mainly on the desire for titles for those in the Cabinet, rather than on a genuine cost-benefit analysis of how they will make the Government run better.
	The reason for the changes that we are debating today is that that which was cast asunder has now been reunited, all in order to add to the splendour of the titles of thewhat is he called now?the First Secretary of State. I think that that is now the principal title of the noble Lord Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool, or wherever it was

Andrew MacKinlay: The supreme pontiff.

David Heath: I am not sure whether the noble Lord Mandelson builds many bridges, but we shall see.
	I do not think that this is the right way of doing business. I hope that we will eventually reach a point at which, if a Prime Minister wishes to change the structure of government, he will argue the case properly by putting a paper before the House and allowing Select Committees to consider the consequences, before then proceeding on a basis of knowledge and understanding of the properly projected advantages and disadvantages, rather than on the rather haphazard basis that we have at the moment.
	Having said all that, these changes have been made and we need to respond to them in regard to the way in which we organise the Committees of the House. As the Minister knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and I have been discussing the consequences of the changes for the Science and Technology Committee. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Leader of the House did not immediately see the strength of the argument and just accept what was a perfectly proper request, particularly as it was backed upas the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East saidby the learned societies, which know a thing or two about these matters.
	The Science and Technology Committee, before it was renamed, was an ornament to the House. It was a very valuable body. I served on it for three years in what I like to think of as its golden age. It was a wonderful Committee, precisely because it did not have to spend all its time looking at the activities of a particular Department and because it could range so widely over the scientific and technological aspects of the way in which the Government operate and pick out the areas in which it had particular expertise, or draw on such expertise, in order to inform the House and the Government. That is why the terms of reference are so important. I am pleased that the Deputy Leader of the House expanded on the Committee's role in her own words as it is not said on paper. I hope that some sort of Pepper  v. Hart procedure will be adopted in the House, so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the Government as to the range of the Committee's activities.
	In its previous manifestation, the Science and Technology Committee sometimes ran into difficulties. As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East will remember, we received a very dusty response from the then Home Secretary when we were looking at aspects of the scientific response to terrorism. He made it very clear that he did not think that this was anything to do with the Science and Technology Committee and asked us please to poke our noses somewhere else rather than in his Department. He not only discouraged us from looking at what the Home Office was doing, but he actually put pressure on the Department for Transport to ensure that we did not know what that Department was doing either.
	I hope that it will be very clearly understood in Government that the Science and Technology Committee has a roving brief, that it must be able to follow its nose in deciding what is appropriate for it to look at and that it must be able to define its own role. If it does so, it will be able to perform the very useful tasks that it has done previously and we should wholly welcome that.
	In moving on to deal with pensions, let me say immediately that for me to talk about that subject in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) or the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) is nonsense; I have nothing like their expertise and I will not pretend to have it. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon will therefore explain the consequences of his amendment himself.
	I was a little surprised to read in some of this morning's newspapers that the initiative to amend the pensions motion came from the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). When I looked at the amendment, I could not see his name. I could see the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Northavon and for Twickenham, (Dr. Cable) the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), but not the name of the right hon. Member for Witney, so I wondered how he could have been responsible for the Government's change of heart [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton can explain.

Alan Duncan: Since I have been invited to explain, perhaps I could put it down to the unique influence in this House of both the Leader of the Opposition and myself.

David Heath: Unique and almost invisible! That is something on which we all congratulate the hon. Gentleman. Let us set that aside, however, and simply say that the strength of the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon is about to adduce is so strong that it is unanswerable, so the Government will accept the amendment.
	On a serious note, it is almost unbelievable to reflect how adept this House is at producing public relations disasters. To be asking for yet more taxpayers' money to support the MPs' pension scheme at the precise moment when there is so much criticism of what we do is quite extraordinary. That is why the amendment is so important. Is there a deficit? I understand that deficits are reported by actuaries, but I have no confidence in actuarial science. I suspect that exam papers for actuarial science are very similar to exam papers in economics; as it used to be said, the questions are the same each year, it is just the answers that change. Actuaries never seem to be consistent for more than one year, but there we are.

Jo Swinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my welcome for the Government's acceptance of the amendment tabled by our hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb). It is surely vital for the House to reduce the costs to the taxpayerboth in the short term and, as the Deputy Leader of the House pointed out, in the medium term, hopefully as a result of the Senior Salaries Review Board reviewbecause it is simply unsustainable for us as MPs continually to go back to the taxpayer asking for more money for our pensions. It is unsustainable in terms of MPs' pensions and, ultimately, with so many people living longer, that kind of action will be unsustainable in terms of public sector pensions more generally.

David Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the issue is longevity, as I suspect it is, some of our constituents will have an easy answer to the longevity of MPs

Andrew Stunell: Off with their heads.

David Heath: My hon. Friend reads my mind perfectly. Longevity is something we have to live with [Interruption.] I am sorry. The view of the general public, rightly or wrongly, is that pension schemes are uniquely helpful to Members of Parliament. We must take account of public opinion in that respect.
	We must take careful cognisance of a further reason: there is a problem with all public sector pensions. Unless we in the House can clearly demonstrate that we are taking a lead, we will not be able to introduce the necessary reforms to public sector pension schemes. Public sector pensions are not constructed in the same way as private sector pensions now are. There is an unsustainable difference, and unless we are prepared to take difficult decisions, we will not be able to square that circle. We will not persuade a single person working in the public sector that there is a necessity to reform pension schemes if we are unable to reform our own.

Christopher Chope: I agree wholeheartedly that the consequences of longevity should be borne by the members of a scheme. Is Liberal Democrat policy therefore that the consequences of longevity should be borne, for example, in the police force scheme, by the policemen themselves, rather than by the taxpayer?

David Heath: There are real problems with the police scheme. As the hon. Gentleman might recall, I used to be chairman of the Avon and Somerset police authority. One of our recurrent problems in balancing our budget each year was the difficulty of paying for the police pension scheme. Many things are not clearly understood about the police pension scheme, not least the contribution made by police officers, but the difficulty has never been resolved.
	The same applies to the pensions of chief fire officers, for instance. When I was leader of Somerset county council, I worked out that the council was sustaining in work or pension 10 chief fire officers, who tend to retire early and who had schemes that cost a lot of money. I do not resent public sector workers having adequate pensions, but we must accept that there will be increasing difficulties in paying for some of those pension arrangements out of the public purse. We must be honest about that, as we must be honest about all our difficulties with the national Exchequer and the deficits that we are building up. We must work out how to do so with respect for the individuals concerned, understanding the circumstances of those who work in the public sector while recognising that the current position is increasingly unsustainable.

Andrew Stunell: I have listened with care to my hon. Friend's wise words. Does he agree that it is impossible for the House to change public sector pension arrangements for other groups until it has tackled the issue for Members of Parliament? It is no good taking splinters out of other people's eyes when we have planks sticking in our own.

David Heath: I always thought that the biblical expression was mote, but perhaps we no longer refer to motes in the House. However, my hon. Friend is right.

Andrew Love: I have listened carefully to the debate, which seems to be ranging into the parliamentary pensions under review by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Should Members of Parliament accept that review in totality before it reports?

Alan Duncan: It is part of a fragmented process.

David Heath: I note the comments of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton from a sedentary position, and he is right. We have not given a sufficiently clear brief as to what exactly we expect to emerge from the process. I seriously hope that when we ask external bodies to look at these matters, we accept the results of what they say. However, we also have to be aware of the context in which we work and, as I have suggested, set an example of how we expect pension schemes in the rest of the public sector to evolve. I would have some difficulty if the two were incompatible. That is my honest response. However, my argument has always been that when we ask independent bodies for their advice, generally we should accept it unless there are strong reasons not to do so.
	As I said, I am no expert on pensions. It is important that we hear from those who are experts. They can ask all the difficult questions, such as those that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) put to the Deputy Leader of the House. I have great sympathy with her; a glazed look came over her eyes as she was asked those complicated questions, to which I certainly would not know the answer. On the basis that the Government are going to accept the amendment, I hope that we can agree to the motions. I also strongly welcome the fact that the Government have accepted, albeit with a slight time delay, our arguments on the Science and Technology Committee.

David Drew: I want to elaborate on my intervention on the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan). However, I start by saying that I welcome the Government's new-found heart on the Science and Technology Committee. I wish that every success and hope that we can call it the Ian Gibson Memorial Committee, although that might be too controversial at the moment.
	We do ourselves a great disservice. A canard has been allowed to spread, deliberately and maliciously, that we have an all-singing, all-dancing, most wonderful pension scheme that cannot be improved on, and that we must feel really guilty about anything to do with it and must never argue back that it is a high-contribution scheme, which has evolved over time and takes account of many of the frailties of people who serve in the House. It has to be looked at from the position that many do not do well out of the parliamentary scheme.
	My starting point is that although the average time of service is 12 and a bit years, which some of us have just about reached, many hon. Members do not serve anything like that time. Many people who come into politics, particularly parliamentary politics, have made enormous sacrifices in their lives. They do not have other pensions to fall back on. I know from personal experience, having talked to people who retired at the last election, that the pension on which they were relying from this place was effectively the only decent pension they got, but of course it was only for the time that they served here.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman is my constituency neighbour and nobody would accuse him of being greedy or grasping, and his conduct repeatedly shows that he is not that kind of person. Therefore, I am slightly puzzled by his argument. He seems to be saying that for people with a poor pension record who come into Parliament, the parliamentary scheme should make up for lost time. That would apply to people who have had nothing before and those who have very generous provision, because the same rules apply to all of us. Surely he is not saying that our scheme should make up for the mess of the rest of our pension rights, whether we have them or not.

David Drew: No, I am not saying that. I would have voted for the amendment because it is right and proper in these times of austerity that we in this place make sacrifices, and I am pleased that the Government saw the rightful nature of the amendment and accepted it. My point is that we need to argue the case that parliamentary pensions are not the golden goose that some people pretend they are, and I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who knows the true situation much better than probably anyone else in the House and I do.
	Unless we make that point, we shall for ever be written about as though the pension were one of the perks that go with the jobone of the elements that make us more equal than most. As we heard from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), many other people in the public sector receive better pensions than we do, and that may be a good thing. The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) shakes his head. He ought to talk to some chief police officers and chief fire officers. If they were honest, they would say that their pensions were far better than ours. They have security, which is the one thing that we never have in this place. Given the way in which things are going, some Members may have even less security than they thought they had. We need to introduce some balance.

Kelvin Hopkins: I sympathise with much of what my hon. Friend is saying. He has mentioned balance. Surely public sector pensionsperhaps including ourshave been in the firing line recently not because they are particularly good, but because of the failure, weakness and diminution of pensions in the private sector. I have every sympathy for anyone who is currently suffering a threat to his or her occupational pension. Should not the Government, and indeed all of us, seek ways in which to ensure that the private sector does not suffer as it seems likely to?

David Drew: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I entirely agree with him. Perhaps we should spend more time thinking about private pensions, rather than indulging in navel-gazing by discussing our own pensions.
	The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)I might call him my hon. Friend in this contextmade a useful observation. We are in our present mess because, as has happened with so many other pensions, we allowed an undue holiday to arise, with the result that the pot is far less full than it should be. Let me reinforce the hon. Gentleman's point by saying to the Minister that it would be good to see the figures. If nothing else, that would enable us to hold our heads a little higher and to say, Yes, this is the additional Treasury support for which we have askedafter all, the Treasury is our employer whether we like it or notbut the Treasury gained throughout the period during which there was either no contribution or no additional contribution, as there should have been, because of the holiday.
	Notwithstanding what has been said about the so-called 5 billion raid, I have always been adamant in my belief that one of the two greatest problems in the public sector is the pension holiday. That is certainly true in much of the private sector, but anyone who considers some of the ways in which local authorities have manipulated pension funds over the years will see what I mean. The other great problem is the mania for early retirement. In the Equality Bill Committee on Tuesday, I argued against what is lovingly described as the national default retirement age, which I used to call 65, because I consider it to be a form of discrimination. As I said then, one of the things on which we ought to pride ourselvesI will cast no aspersionsis the fact that no such discrimination exists in the House of Commons. Many Members remain here until they are well past 65 and there is no pressure for them to go any earlier, other than what the electorate might do to them. The early retirement mania has never affected this place in terms of its representation.

Barbara Keeley: I have some information that may help my hon. Friend and others who have referred to the pension holiday, as the reduction in Exchequer contributions has been described. This year's increase is entirely due to higher costs caused by the longevity to which Members have referred. It is possible that the years of reduced Exchequer contributions led to increased contributions in 2003 and 2006, but it remains the case that the Government do not pursue a policy of overfunding during a period of surplus. Whatever Members may think about actuarial science, the Government have to follow the guidance of the Government Actuary.

David Drew: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I always thought it the epitome of madness that when more money was available, we imposed a cap, so that when we were then in a time of difficulty, we never had enough money because no surplus had been built up in the better times. I never saw the logic in that, but that is of history.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent and informative speech. Does he know whether any inquiry or survey has been conducted into how much early retirement, particularly in local government but also in other areas, may have cost pension funds, because people have been able to retire from 50 onwards? I am not referring only to Sir Fred Goodwin and his pension, and the 17 billion pension pot. Is it not true that indulging in early retirement has been very costly for pension funds, because people are drawing a pension very early and living to a ripe old age?

David Drew: I am beginning to think that we are a double actbut of course we are not. Some years ago I put a number of parliamentary questions to the Treasury because I wanted an estimate of those figures, to which the answer was, sadly, We cannot, and we won't. I think that does us all a great disservice, because I believe this issue should be debated. I argue strongly with my colleagues in the public sector that they have a duty in respect of their retirement age. If I were still a teacher, I would be retiring in a couple of years' time, but I think I would be fairly useful as a classroom teacher beyond that age. Thankfully, many teachers carry on working beyond that age, but there is still a belief that 60 is the retirement agethat that is the age at which people should go, come what may. I shall park that point now, but I feel strongly about it.
	I want to make two further points. We talk about longevity being the cause of the problem. I cannot prove this, but I have been told by more than one Minister that one reason why the parliamentary scheme was always so robust was that until comparatively recently, being an MP was not the best line of work to be in for having a long and deserving retirement. It may well be that we are becoming more like those in all other walks of life, and are beginning to have a quality of life after we leave this place, but it is important that we look at the reasons for the particular nature of any scheme and argue the case for its special qualities and characteristics.
	Let me turn to my second point. The Labour party has a benevolent fund, because until comparatively recently many people retired from this House in a very poor state. We rightly continue to support those people, as those of us who are much better off with a much higher standard of pension provision have an obligation to support those who are not. Again, I want to put on the record that, in contrast with the message that has often been put across, it is not true that we have done much better over a long period than others in the public sector, many of whom we represent. The parliamentary scheme has evolved over time. It is a good scheme now, but it was not always so. Many people have suffered, and we must learn the lessons from that.
	This is not special pleading. I absolutely would have supported the amendment of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)I was going to refer to him as right hon., but that is only a matter of timebecause I agree with him that we must give such a lead. However, it annoys meoccasionally my blood does boilthat whenever the BBC or Sky or the papers are talking about greedy MPs, they always have the throwaway line, who have gold-plated pensions.
	We should at least put on the record that those pensions are not quite as good as some suggest. I have been fortunate because I have been able to conflate my teacher's pension with the parliamentary scheme, which puts me in a better position. But as I said to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), we have achieved the position that many schemes should be ina claw-back, so if someone retires before 65, they are seriously penalised.

Andrew Love: If we really want to get across the message that our pensions are not as gold-plated as is often assumed, we are the last people who should make that case. We need someone independent, such as the SSRB, to make that case for us.
	The House appears to be relatively unanimous about the motion, but behind it is a much larger debate about whether we should continue with a defined benefit contribution scheme, like most of the public sector. Does my hon. Friend think that that is something that we should protect?

David Drew: My hon. Friend always asks me easy questions. It is worth fighting for a defined benefit scheme, because that is the gold standard that has been created over a long period of time. However, I accept that we cannot have the public sector doing one thing and the private sector doing something else entirely. That is hypocritical and unfair, and we have to have the debate. However, in the public sector, the debate would be much more reasonable if people accepted that 65 was the normal retirement age. In that case, they would make contributions up to that age, which would deal with many of the problems arising from unfair demands on the fund.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend has drawn a contrast between the public and private sectors, and it is unfair to the private sector. Does he agree that in the longer term we should look to a universal pension arrangement for employees, under which we all have defined benefit schemes with the heavy involvement of the state, as necessary?

David Drew: Yes, and we have to make the argument that people will have to make reasonable contributions. We are supposed to take the lead on this, but we have let people down by allowing them to believe that their contributions can remain the same even if they live longer and retire earlier. That does not add up, and it has brought many funds crashing down.
	I shall conclude my remarks on that gloomy note, but I hope that the next time a journalist makes the throwaway observation that MPs' pensions are gold-plated, they will also publish their own pension arrangements and what they have managed to get out of the system. They might discover that they are somewhat better off than MPs.

John Butterfill: In the debate so far, there has been a lot of conjecture and of looking back to the past, and I wish to try to put it into context.
	There was indeed a considerable period during which the Treasury did not contribute the correct amount to the parliamentary scheme. If one looks back to the previous valuation that was conducted by the Government Actuary, one clearly sees that the deficit was approaching 50 million, all of which was attributable to the Government failing to pay the employer's contribution, which is, of course, funded by the taxpayer. That might or might not have been a correct decision, but it did mean that there was a deficit that had to be covered. The Government suggested that it should be covered by increased Government payments over 15 years.
	That has been part of the problem in the perception of where we are going now. The Government's contribution now looks unreasonably high, whereas a high proportion of it is related to their failure to contribute in the past. That is not just a criticism of the present Government; it also applies to the previous Government.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely rightI do not demur from what he has just said. However, can he help me to understand something that is puzzling me about the motion? The combined contribution, including the deficit contribution to which he refers, is 28.7 per cent., but the Government Actuary says that, per year, 8.5 per cent. is the cost of servicing the deficitthat is the figure in the most recent review. So, 28.7 minus 8.5 is 20.2. The Government are trying to cap at 20 per cent. Does he understand why the Government have made proposals that do not achieve the 20 per cent. cap but bring it to 20.2 per cent.? I do not understand it, and wonder whether he can explain it to me.

John Butterfill: I think I do. May I come to that in due course? I shall try to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, and if he does not understand when I explain it then, I shall have to apologise to him at that time.
	A very substantial Government contribution was necessary to bring a deficit back in line with where it should have been. It arose from the failure to contribute the correct amount, as originally advised by the Government Actuary. The Government Actuary, to be fair to the Government, said, Well, things are going rather well. The stock market is looking pretty good, so you can probably tolerate not paying in. That is one of the problems with the way in which pensions have been funded in the past, and I want to expand on that point a little further, if I may.
	If, at the previous valuation, the Government had been making the correct contributions, the Members' scheme would have been about 5 million in surplus rather than nearly 50 million in deficit. That, I think, is worth bearing in mind as background. Today, the Government Actuary is saying, Now we have to take into account longevity. We have reviewed the problems of longevity and we have found that we probably have not made enough allowance for the improvement in people's lives over many years. We need to adjust for the fact that people are likely to live longer. The impact of that is to reverse the situation. We now need to raise, probably, another 50 million or thereabouts. There will have to be increased contributions to cover that element. That problem would not be there if we had dealt with it earlier.
	My view is that the present system of valuing pensions, whether in the public sector or the private sector, is stark raving bonkers. We ask actuaries, every three years, to value each scheme and to try to see where the pitfalls or benefits might lie. When times are really good and stock markets are going up, they say that we should not bother to put any money in because we will come through with a surplus. When times get bad, they say, Gosh, you've got to put a shedload of money in. Times are terrible, and you have to put more money in. That is at a time when most schemescertainly those in the private sectorhave not got any money, because times are bad.
	That has to be a crazy way of dealing with final salary pension schemes. It seems to me that the actuarial profession should, over many years, have been taking a long-term view. Pensions do not go from year to yearthey cover 30 or 40 years at a time. We should therefore establish what the appropriate contribution should be from the scheme sponsorand, indeed, from the scheme members if they also contribute, as we doover a period of 30 years or more.
	Those figures are available. Quite a few analyses have been performed over the past 30 or 40 years that make it clear what has been going on, despite all the huge ups and downs in the markets. They show that schemes that have invested in shares have gone up by about 8 per cent. per annum, while those that have invested in property have gone up by about 7 per cent. and those in Government bonds have risen by about 6.5 per cent.
	That is what has happened over a 30 or 40-year horizon. There have been wild variations within that, but the people who run pension schemes should fund for long-term liabilities. At the moment, people in both the public and private sectors are paying the price for tolerating wild valuations that are merely snapshots in time and bear no relation to what is likely to happen over a long period.
	The adverse effect of longevity means that schemes must be adjusted for the increase in people's lifetimes. That can achieved in only one logical way, and that is by increasing retirement ages in line with the increase in longevity so that people who live a long time fund the cost of receiving their pension provision over a longer time than was originally anticipated. They will have to wait a little longer before they draw their pensions and if they choose, for whatever reason, to take their pensions early they will suffer a diminution in what they get. Obviously, people who are seriously ill can take sickness retirement, which can be covered through insurance.
	That is how schemes should be structured. Our scheme is not so structured, however, and neither are most private sector schemes.
	Last year, the Government said that costs were rising and might rise still further. Without taking into account what they were having to pay to make up the deficits that had been allowed to accrue, they sought to cap the Government contribution at 20 per cent. The House debated that proposal, and accepted that there would have to be some capping of the Government contribution to protect the taxpayer. We then had to look at what we might do thereafter.
	More than a year ago the Government said that they would instruct the Senior Salaries Review Body to look at the issue, and to make recommendations to the Government and the House about how the scheme might be amended for the future. If they had issued that instruction, we might have had the SSRB report before us today, as we debate what is almost a crisis adjustment. Sadly, for reasons that I can only begin to guess at, the Government did not in fact instruct the SSRB until earlier this year.
	The Government's proposal before the House today has an air of crisis about it, in that it says that, if something is not done, they will go over the 20 per cent. limit, backdated to 1 April. The amendment takes a further step backwards, and adopts the approach that we would have had were we looking at the matter a year ago. It will not solve the problem that I have identified, for which the Government will have to come up with something after the end of the debate today.
	One other element to which I should refer is the proposed removal of the rights of hon. Members who have been here since before 1989 and who have reached the limit of their contributions under our scheme to continue making pension contributions after they have reached the age of 65. That will have an impact, which relates to what the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) said, in that it will produce an additional 1.2 per cent. of savings.
	The trustees have considered that point, as we have considered many other proposalslargely produced by usto reduce the cost of the scheme. It was at the initiative of the trustees that the right to retire before 65 without penalty was removed. We have also considerably tightened the rules on early retirement for ill health. We think that in the past there may have been some abuses, which were expensive, although nothing like the abuses in some other areas of the public sector. Nevertheless, the change will produce significant savings. We are still waiting for the Government to implement it and we are slightly surprised that it was not included in the motion.
	There is no question but that the trustees would try to obstruct reasonable changes. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is not entirely happy with the situation, but it must be remembered that Members who wish to contribute further sums towards their retirement have other avenues for doing so, albeit on a money purchase basis.

Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend be able to indicate during the debate whether it would be appropriate for somebody such as me, and other Members who are over 65 and have reached the full two thirds of pension, to discontinue from 1 April further contributions to the parliamentary contributory pension scheme? Would we lose benefits if we discontinued our payments to the scheme? Can my hon. Friend help me on that point? Clearly, we have to give the Department of Resources instructions as to whether to continue paying contributions to the pension fund.

John Butterfill: It is my understanding that Members affected by the change would not be able to continue making contributions, but their rights under the scheme would continue to be safeguarded. The only change for my hon. Friend would be that if he wished to continue saving for his retirement, he would be unable to do it through the parliamentary scheme but there would be opportunities for him to do so elsewhere without losing his rights as a member of the scheme.
	The saving is about 1.2 per cent. The object of the changes proposed by the Government is to save rather more than that. The figures go from 10 to 11.9 per cent. for those on one fortieth of final salary, from 6 to 7.9 per cent. for those on one fiftieth and from 5.5 to 5.9 per cent. for those on one sixtieth. That is all fairly transparent, and means that Members will be paying considerably more this year, because the change will be backdated to last April. On that basis, for those on the upper level scheme, the net cost would have been about 60 a month. If the Government accept the Liberal Democrat proposal or something similar, the amount could double and the cost would be about 120 a month to Members.
	There may be other ways of dealing with the situation. My view is that the simplest way by far would be to increase the retirement age. The Government Actuary has said clearly that the entire cost of what we now seek to fund relates to increased longevity. We could thus conclude that if the change relates to longevity we must increase the retirement age to pay for it, without going through complex shenanigans to change this or that contribution. Changing the retirement age would be a very simple solution.
	There is a significant read-on to other defined benefit schemes, whether in the private or public sector. The public have to understand that increased longevity means that more will have to be paid into pension schemes. There might be an argument about who pays but, inevitably, that is what must happen. However, the same effect could be achieved by raising the date of retirement.
	Let me say a few other things about the scheme because all sorts of aspects of its nature are misunderstood by not only the general public, but even apparently well-informed members of the actuarial profession. Most members of the public think that ordinary Back Benchers retire on the basis of the Back-Bench salary, but they also think that Ministers and other office holders in the House will enjoy a pension based on their increased salaries. They think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will retire on a pension that is two thirds of his salary as Chancellor, but that is totally untrue. The Chancellor's pension will be the same as that of the humblest Member, except that the additional 10 per cent. contributions that he pays while he is a Minister will be reflected in a modest supplement to the pension.
	The only exceptions to that arrangement have been Prime Ministers, Lord Chancellors and the Speaker, although I gather that some of them have said that they will not take the extra money. That is an honourable position, but individuals must make up their own minds. The public assume that our scheme is the same as every other and that as we rise up the ladder and reach more senior positions, we get a bigger pension, but we do not. That point needs to be clearly made because it addresses the biggest misunderstanding about the parliamentary scheme. That is not to say, however, that our scheme is not better than that of many of our constituents, but it is not quite as gold-plated as the media have led the public to believe, so it is important to get that on record.
	It is also important to put it on record that the level of the contributions made by Members10 per cent. with the one fortieth scheme for which most hon. Members optis almost unprecedented. I think that only the police pay more, but their payments reflect the fact that they can retire at least 10 years earlier than we can.

Nicholas Winterton: After 30 years.

John Butterfill: My hon. Friend is right.
	We face the problem that the Government have made a proposal that is neither fish nor fowl. It does not deal with the long-term problem nor correctly anticipate what might come out of the SSRB. The motion is a stop-gap that probably need not have been tabled at all. The whole thing could have been left until we received the SSRB report. It is impossible to imagine that the House will not accept the SSRB's recommendations about our future pay, so I would have preferred us to have made the whole adjustment at that time, retrospectively if necessary.

Barry Gardiner: I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who has given sterling service to the House over many years through his chairmanship of the parliamentary pension fund. I was privileged to serve on the fund for a good six or seven years after 1997 and I saw the skilful way in which he steered the fund and coped with the problems that were faced.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the average term of a Member of Parliament was now considered to be 12 years. I am sure that he recalls that one of the first things that we did after 1997 was to review the average span of time spent as a Member of Parliament, and it was eight years in those days. To draw on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who made an excellent speech, that shows that many Members leave the House in what would otherwise be the middle of their career. They then find it difficult to resume the career that they had before entering Parliament. Often, their income, and their pension in particular, suffers as a result, because they can never return to the position they would have had if they had not entered Parliament. I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud on one point. He talked about the pension scheme being a perk. It is always wrong to think of pension schemes as a perk. In any walk of life, a pension scheme is one thing and one thing only: it is wages deferred, and we must always regard it as such.

David Drew: What I said is that the pension is perceived as a perk.

Barry Gardiner: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's correction. He is right that the pension is often perceived as a perk, but it is wages deferred. It should always be considered as such in calculations of the whole remuneration package. That is true whether we are talking about Members of Parliament or any person in the public or private sector work force. It is absolutely right that we should contribute to the costs imposed on the fund as a result of longevity. In so far as the proposals seek to achieve that, they should be accepted by Members in all parts of the House.
	I should like to reinforce the remarks of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. He said that actuarial calculations are a snapshot. It is particularly ridiculous for a snapshot taken at a time of global shares meltdown in 2008-09 to set the pattern for the future. Of course, the previous actuarial calculations related to 2005. He made the point very well that had the employer's contributions been maintained over that period, the fund would, in 2005, have been in a 5 million surplus, rather than the 50 million deficit that it found itself in. It is important to recognise that actuaries looking at pension funds always seem to take account of the good times, in terms of stopping putting contributions in, but of course it is precisely at the bad times that they reassess, look at the stock market and say that the fund has a much lower valuation than they believed it would have, so extra money has to be put in. Usually, that demand falls not only on the employer's part of the contribution, but on the employees' part, too. That is a way in which employeesI am referring not simply to Members in this House, but to employees who contribute to any pension fundend up being short-changed by that method of valuation.
	I wish to put a specific point to my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House. I am sorry if it caused her confusion and consternation when I intervened on her earlier. I will try to make my point more clearly now. She will note that whether the accrual rate is one fortieth or one fiftieth of final salary, the increase in percentage contribution demanded is 1.9 per cent. In paragraph (1)(c) of the motion, which relates to an accrual rate of one sixtieth of final salary, the increase in percentage contribution is simply 0.4 per cent. My question does not relate simply to the disparity between those percentage rates. It is based on a calculation of the respective total percentage contributions, which are 5.9, 7.9 and 11.9 per cent.
	I know that my hon. Friend wishes to write to me, and I am trying to lay out this question as clearly as I can in order to receive as full an answer as possible. On a 64,000 salary, those percentages represent respectively 3,776, 5,056 and 7,616. If she then calculates what one fortieth, one fiftieth and one sixtieth of that salary is, she will find that it equates respectively to 1,066, 1,280 and 1,600 in retirement.

Steve Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Barry Gardiner: Not at this stage, because I want to set out the question as clearly as I can.

Phil Willis: We have the answer.

Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentlemen may need to the listen to the question before they provide an answer.
	To achieve each sum, the respective gearing would be 3.54, 3.95 and 4.76 years in retirement. That inequity does not reflect different longevities or anything like that, and the disparities in the costs to the pot should be met from the fund that has accrued from the investment of those initial sums from now until retirement. I therefore wish to receive an explanation of the differential gearing effect of those contribution rates.
	My hon. Friend the Minister passed a note to me stating that
	if Members contributions are to increase, it is fair that all Members pay the same increase,
	but that cannot be right. They should pay rateably equivalent increases for the benefits that they hope to accrue, not simply the same standard 1.9 per cent. I now give way to the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb).

Steve Webb: indicated dissent.

Barry Gardiner: Okay.
	I also listened carefully to what the pension fund chairman, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, said about changing the retirement age. That is a way to introduce a sliding scale, but would one be able to take one's pension benefits only after 65 years old, or would the benefits be reduced if they were taken at 65? If it were the former, and people were unable to access their pension benefits until they were older than 65, there might be difficulties for people who had left the House and gained employment with a pension cut-off age of 65.

John Butterfill: The retirement age is simply a target set by the scheme. If a member sought to retire before that date, they would suffer an actuarial diminution in their pension. That is the way it always works with such schemes, but the move to 67-years-old, which I have suggested, is in line with what we are doing on national insurance-based pensions, whose starting age will go up over the years to 68. We have already recognised the need for that move on state retirement pensions, and there is no reason why we should not do the same thing with our own.

Barry Gardiner: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clarification and, in that respect, I entirely agree.
	In addition, I add my welcome to this afternoon's proposals to reinstate the Science and Technology Committee. It is excellent that the Government have listened to the points that have been made and reintroduced it.

Steve Webb: I shall principally address the pensions issue before us, but I should like to place on the record my appreciation of the Science and Technology Committee, which has been chaired with exceptional ability by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). His whole Committee has contributed a great deal to the House, and I am pleased that it will be able to continue to do so until the general election.
	Amendment (a) stands in my name and those of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I shall seek to move the amendment formally at the end of this debate, but I should like now to address the reasons behind it. I would like clarification from the Deputy Leader of the House, who I hope has had the chance to seek inspiration, on the issue that I raised in intervening on the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill). I apologise if I did not explain my question terribly clearly.
	The motion in front of us says that the Exchequer contribution will be 28.7 per cent.; that much seems unambiguous. However, page 25 of the Government Actuary's report published in March 2009 says that the amount needed to clear the deficit is 8.5 per cent. per year; there are two componentsthe amount for the recurring liabilities and the amount to clear the historic deficit, and the second of those is 8.5 per cent. According to my maths, if we take 8.5 per cent. from 28.7 per cent., we end up with 20.2 per cent. I am aware that that 8.5 per cent. was 8.7 per cent. last yearand 28.7 minus 8.7 is 20, so I can see why that would have appeared to be the right number. This year, however, it does not appear to be the right number, as 28.7 minus 8.5 is 20.2.
	I cannot see how what the Government's unamended motion proposes is consistent with the resolution of the House that the Exchequer contribution should be restricted to 20 per cent. I might simply be missing something; that is quite possible, given the technicality of the area. However, I hope that the Ministerperhaps with some advicewill clarify the point before the end of the debate. Whether the figure should be 20 per cent. or 20.2 per cent., amendment (a) is about this transitional year, prior to the Senior Salaries Review Body reporting on a more root-and-branch reform. I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West said about increasing retirement ages; that is a good direction in which to go. Pending that, however, what should we be doing for 2009-10?
	We are all aware that the world has moved on. A 20 per cent. Exchequer contribution was first mooted two years ago, in 2007. That has been the backdrop to our deliberations for a two-year period, but we would all accept that the world of 2007 was very different from ours today. What seemed appropriate then as a cap on the Treasury contribution does not seem so now. It was a very different economic environment. That was not quite so before the crash, but we were certainly not in the full depths of the economic problems. The position of people in many other pension schemes was not as apparent as it is now, and public attitudes to the House were obviously different then.
	I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). We should not apologise for existing or for the work that we do, and we should not give an inappropriate impression of the pensions and benefits that we receive. However, many of us feel that the world has simply moved on so much that it is inappropriate in 2009-10 to ask the taxpayer to make any additional contribution to our pensions in comparison with 2008-09.
	It is sometimes suggested that that is a hair-shirt approach, but it is worth putting the issue in context. We are talking about the difference between an employer contribution of 28.7 per centor 20.2 per cent., which takes away the deficit bit for the sake of comparability; that is how I think it should beand 18.1 per cent. or 18.3 per cent., depending on what people think the right number is. In other words, we are arguing about whether the taxpayer should put 20 per cent. or so or 18 per cent. or so of our salary into our pensions. Such figures would be beyond the dreams of avarice for anybody in the private sector and for quite a number of people in the public sector. Occasionally we need to remind ourselves that although, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, some people right at the top of the public sector in certain professions have exceptionally generous pensions, their numbers are relatively small. The vast swathe of public sector workers retire on vastly less generous pensions than we do.
	One of the issues that has been raised is whether we should simply accept what review bodies say. It is a serious point; if we second-guess the independent review bodies and do a bit more of the hair-shirt, what is the point of those bodies? However, even those bodies accepted that we have to take account of the changing world in which we live.
	I want to quote what Sir John Baker said in June 2008. He referred to the 2007 Senior Salaries Review Body report, which referred to the Exchequer cost of the accrual of benefits for MPs being in principle limited to 20 per cent. But he also stated, at paragraph 63, that
	the best solution would be for the Independent Body to continue to consider MPs' pension arrangements bearing in mind the unusual career pattern of MPs
	that was the point that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) made
	and the evolution of pensions in the public sector and wider economy.
	That is the crucial phrase. In other words, even the independent review body was saying that these things are not set in stone, and that the world outside, public sector pensions and the wider economy are moving on. We in this House should therefore have discretion not always to have to wait for the next independent review, which might take 18 months or might not be due to report for another year. We have to make a decision more or less today, and in a sense we are probably nearly three months late in making it, because whatever we do will be backdated to 1 April.
	Even Sir John Baker said that the independent body should bear in mind what is going on in the wider economy. Prior to the SSRB's report, we already know what is going on. Only this week, we had reports of the further demise of private sector final salary schemes, and it important that we as a House show that we know what is happening in the wider economy.

Andrew Love: We have a prominent but small scheme, and the question for us is whether we should give a lead to the private sector or whether, because the scheme is relatively small and funded, which is unusual in the public sector, we should be a lag indicator. That will be critical to how things evolve.

Steve Webb: That is a very thoughtful comment. In my view, we have to be a leading indicator. We must be able to consider what is happening in the public sector with some credibility. Public sector pensions are very diverse, and I do not have a blanket view about them. The amount that workers put in, the salary that they get, their job security and the physical demands on them are different, and there is not a one-size-fits-all answer to the public sector pension issue.
	That is why our party believes in having, perhaps as the first act of a new Government, an independent commission, ideally with buy-in across the political spectrum, to review public sector pensions urgently. It could ensure that they are fair to the taxpayer, who makes a substantial contribution to them, and to public sector workers. Some of them at the top do extraordinarily well, but some at the bottom have pretty rotten jobs with pretty poor salaries and end up with pretty poor pensions. There is a balance to be struck, and if we want to say anything about later retirement ages, for example, it would be appropriate for us to have examined our own scheme first and been willing to take the relevant conclusions on the chin ourselves.

David Drew: One point that must be addressed is that those who leave a scheme early often receive enhancements. There is a belief that those enhancements come almost from outer space, but in fact they come from the scheme. They have a disproportionate effect on lower-paid people who serve their full term and then end up with an even poorer pension.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. We have been doing some research on local authority chief executives and senior officers, for example, who seem to retire very early and get substantial boosts to their pension on leaving. As he rightly says, that money comes from somewhereeither from other scheme members or from council tax payers, or I suspect from both. That needs to be addressed.
	To return to our own scheme, the amendment argues that we should return the Exchequer contribution for 2009-10 to its 2008-09 level. As the debate has illustrated, there are a wide variety of ways of doing that. A number of my colleagues have said that we will already be putting 60-odd extra a month in as a result of the main motion, essentially reversing the pay rise that we have had, and that their preference would be for any further rebalancing in line with the amendment to come in the form of diminished scheme benefits rather than increased current contributions.
	I have an open mind about what the right mixture is, but I would be happy to enter into conversation with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, the chairman of the trustees, and with the Leader of the House and her colleagues. Assuming that the amendment is passed, I will be happy to discuss with them how to achieve the right mixture in a way that deals with taxpayers' concerns but is fair to hon. Members.

Andrew Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being liberal in taking interventions. Is not the weakness of both the amendment and the motion that these ideas have been brought forward by Members of Parliament, for Members of Parliament? There is little or no trust outside in MPs taking decisions about themselves. Would it not therefore be better to refer all this to an independent body? I submit that the SSRB has not always been seen to be independent on public sector issues, so perhaps we should roll the whole thing into the Kelly review, which appears to have the confidence of the public and which will report later this year.

Steve Webb: One of my concerns about that suggestion is that it would mean yet more delay. As our debate has illustrated, these are complex matters. Bringing the review under a different review body, which would not quite have to start from scratch, but which would have to get up to speed quickly, could delay things further. Either way, we need a decision for 2009-10, and as I have said, we are already nearly three months late in making it. Until we have heard the views of independent experts, the public will expect us to make a decision now. They will judge what we do, and to go by the indications that we have been given in the past 24 hours, and certainly the feedback that I have received, the public welcome what we have done.
	There is a slight danger of grandstanding. I am fully seized of that risk, but hon. Members might be interested to learn that some of the media comment about the amendment has almost been saying that this might be the moment when people finally get it. I would not be so arrogant as to suggest that that was down to me, but there is a sense of the commentators saying, Perhaps we're seeing a change in mood. Given everything that we have been through, it might be helpful to us to send a signal that we are looking at things differently. I hope that that will be constructive, rather than to the detriment of other colleagues in the House.

Simon Hughes: Perhaps my hon. Friend will answer on the record a question that I have asked him privately: what independent authority or body supports the amendment? In other words, is there a case for his proposal being agreed to now, on the basis that people outside this place have said, This is the right thing to do; therefore we should get on and do it?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend might have missed the bit when I dealt with that point. The independent Sir John Baker says in paragraph 63 that we should consider not just the normal matters, but
	the evolution of pensions in the public sector and wider economy.
	In other words, we should not just take such decisions in a vacuum. He was talking about what the independent review bodies should do, but as we have to take an interim decision for ourselves, he has given us the authority to look at what is happening in the wider economy. That substantiates the case for saying that it is entirely appropriate for us to take into account, in our interim decision making, what is happening to public sector pensions, where retirement ages are rising, and what is happening in the private sector, where there are some dreadful things. That is only right and proper.
	Before concluding, I would like briefly to thank the 23 hon. Members who supported early-day motion 1389, which was the precursor to amendment (a). I am grateful to them all, particularly the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), who was the one Conservative MP to give his support, four weeks ago. I was grateful for the support of the other 197 last night, which was obviously what clinched things. However, I am also grateful to those hon. Members who were willing to go out on a limb, because I am aware that I probably lost my copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People in raising the matter in the first place.
	To reflect what the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said in his intervention, we need to move to a situation with pay and pensions where we hand decisions for wise and independent assessment over to those who are not seen to be partisan and who will take account of what is happening in the wider economy and the public sector, although it is also critical that we ask them the right question. I hope that we can reach that point after this interim year. I also hope that in responding to this debate the Deputy Leader of the House will say whether she feels that the substantive motion hits the 20 per cent., because I do not believe that it does. However, I also commend amendment (a) to the House.

Phil Willis: Perhaps it is time for a change of mood. I have listened to most of this debate, which has been about the changes to Members' pensions, and I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). I have listened to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), who bring incredible expertise to this area, for which the whole House will thank them, but at the end of the day, unless things are done independently of the House of Commons, I suspect that the headlines that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) constantly referred to in his contribution will continue, because journalists will simply wrap them up according to how they want to portray Members of Parliament. I thank those hon. Members for their contributions, none the less.
	I want to make a brief contribution to the debate in order to thank the Deputy Leader of the House and the Government for the way in which the machinery of government changes have restored the Science and Technology Select Committee to the business of the House. I believe that the Government made a mistake in 2007 when they got rid of the Science and Technology Committee as a separate cross-government scrutiny Committee. That occurred because of the speed of the changes that took place when the present Prime Minister took over; the speed with which the Departments were reorganised took everyone by surprise. He certainly did not consult me at the time; had he done so, I would have told him that certain responsibilities needed to be protected.
	I am grateful for the speedy way in which the Science Minister, Lord Drayson, responded within three days to the Leader of the House to say that our idea clearly needed support and that he supported it. I cannot remember a Minister responding to the Leader of the House in such a clear way before. That spoke volumes about how the House and the broader science community view the importance of science in tackling all the great global challenges that we face. It would be inconceivable for a Department the size of the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, with all its responsibilities, not to have anyone examining the very machinery that will deliver the changes. The changes could involve the environment, energy, the green technologies or the plethora of health reforms coming out of our laboratories and our pharmaceutical and technology companies. Without being able to scrutinise all those matters, the House, the Government and our nation would all be the poorer. I want to put on record our genuine thanks to the Science Minister.
	I also want to put on record my thanks to the many learned societies and organisationsincluding the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Society, the Institute of Biology, the Institute of Physics, the Campaign for Science and Engineering and many othersthat did not just sit and say, Woe is us!, but wrote to and lobbied the Government about the changes.
	Above all, I want to thank the members of my present Committee, the Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills, including the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who was in his place earlier, for the enormous job of work that they have done over many yearsin some cases, since before I arrived here. We heard earlier about the distinguished contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to the Committee in its halcyon days.
	This is probably the only chance that I will have to put on record my thanks to Dr. Ian Gibson, the former Member for Norwich, North. I do not wish to comment on the circumstances in which he left the House, but it is important to put on record his enormous contribution to the House and to science, including his work in supporting cancer charities. He encouraged the Government to introduce cancer plans and followed that up. He also worked on embryology, and we should acknowledge that the draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill was largely a result of his early work. I want to put on record my thanks to him, along with those of our Committee and, I hope, of the House, and to wish him well in his early retirement.
	The machinery of government changes have raised a number of specific issues for science and technology. The Leader of the House wrote to me in which she said that re-establishing the Science and Technology Committee,
	with a clear understanding that it will pursue a wide-ranging agenda
	on science and technology across the House
	offers the best solution.
	Will the Deputy Leader of the House expand a little on that? I understand perfectly well why she does not wish to introduce new Standing Orders for a new Committee and instead to make all those arrangements under Standing Order No. 152, but for the Science and Technology Committee to work effectively, it is important that it has the power to scrutinise science budgets. The research councils spend the majority of the Government's money for pure science, and it is in respect of the protection of pure science that there is the greatest concern that the move into the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills might see a shift towards greater transactional science and the use of science for business at the expense of basic pure science. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to reassure me on that.
	On the plight of universities, I am not betraying a confidence when I say that I had discussions this morning with the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge university, Alison Richard. She expressed very real concerns about how universities are going to be scrutinised within this massive new Department. I fully accept that my Committee will be able to look at the research elements of universitiesthat is right and properbut issues related to teaching, undergraduate work, access to universities, how we keep our universities world class and so forth is a job for a Committee on its own, particularly given that a review of fees will take place and that the former Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills has committed to reviewing the form and function of higher education in the future.
	As for the structure, the new Committee will have 14 members. I smiled earlier when the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) spoke about the Conservative party's passion for science. The hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) is a glowing example of that commitment, as he has maintained a huge desire to promote science on behalf of the Conservative party, and I pay tribute to him. I say to the Conservative Front Benchers, however, that although there were four Conservative members of the Committee since 2007, only one has ever turned up for active participation. Two members of the Committeethe hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)have never once attended a single Committee meeting.

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is not a Tory.

Phil Willis: Well, he was when he became a member of the Committee.  [Interruption.] I do not want to intrude on griefor, perhaps, happiness, depending on which way one looks at it. With the exception of the fantastic contribution of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), a fantastic member of the Committee, unless we get all the parties actively participating in scrutiny, the Select Committee will not achieve what it should. I say that in a good spirit, not in a negative manner.
	Overall, I can tell the Deputy Leader of the House that we are delighted with the changes, as is the broader community of science. I only hope that the Committee will live up to the House's expectations in the few months before we have a general election and I retire for my pension.

Barbara Keeley: We have had an excellent debate on two different motions this afternoon. I am pleased that we were able to discuss the Science and Technology Committee and the structures of such Committees as well as make some constructive contributions to the debate on pensions. I have been asked some specific questions, and I will ensure that good answers are provided to any that I am unable to answer here and now.
	We are all grateful that there is such a wide consensus on the new Science and Technology Committee. I regret that a mistaken step was taken in the past when we got rid of something that was doing excellent work. I am sure, however, that there is widespread consensus on the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).
	In business questions today, there was discussion of what Select Committees can do. Let me re-emphasise that it is up to Committees to take a wide-ranging approach to their remit, and to examine the full scope of science policy and related matters across government. Earlier this week, a Hansard Society conference considered the role of departmental Select Committees. We have now moved beyond Departments turning around and saying to Select Committees, We don't want to answer that, or, You can't look at that. That should no longer occur in Select Committees. In the new spirit of reform, if a Select Committee decides that it wants to scrutinise research budgets, for example, it should be able to do so.
	I am also aware of the comments of Universities UK that there should be a Sub-Committee devoted to higher education. Clearly, it is up to the new departmental Select Committee to consider that. We would not want to tell it that it should set up a Sub-Committee, although clearly it could do so. Higher education is a key aspect of the work of any business Departmentand of the new Select Committee. It could not be otherwise. Education has been a priority for the Government since 1997. Let us hope that the Select Committee sets up such a Sub-Committee.
	May I, like other Members, thank the trustees of the parliamentary pension fund for their work, and particularly the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), who spoke lucidly and expansively, for his chairmanship? May I correct the suggestion made by the shadow Leader of the House that there was a lack of consultation with the trustees and chair of the pension fund? My predecessor, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), did consult the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. In fact, we postponed the motions before the House because he was away for a short time due to ill health, and we felt that it would not be right to consider them without him here. In my new role, I have had meetings and reviewed earlier correspondencethe consultation came in a busy week, but I was glad of the time I spent with him.
	On the questions about the 20 per cent. cap and the 0.2 per cent. figure, I cannot give adequate answers in the Chamber now. I will find out the answers to those good questions, and to the detailed questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner).
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House is content to return to the House with further proposals to ensure that the Exchequer's contribution this year does not exceed that of last year. As to the main motion, Members have asked both why we did not bring it forward earlier, and why we do not do so later. Whatever happens, the interim step of the main motion is necessary to cap the Exchequer contribution. That will entail back-dated additional payments, so it would have been unfair to people to wait until later this year.
	I am glad that we have been able to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). If I may repeat an overused phrase this week, we do get it. We understand the context outside the House to which many hon. Members have referred. We will return to the debate, and give Members a chance to vote on or agree the options necessary to achieve a freeze on the Exchequer contribution.

Andrew Love: May I accept my hon. Friend's thanks on behalf of the trustees? There appears to be a consensus across the Chamber on the motion and, I think, the amendment. That makes it all the more important that we have consensus as major changes are made to the pension scheme. I ask the Office of the Leader of the House to take a lead in ensuring that all hon. Members, not just those who have turned up today, are fully consulted so that we take everyone with us?

Barbara Keeley: That is a fair point and I will take it on board.
	We will return to the debate and give hon. Members a chance to vote on, or agree, the options necessary to achieve that freeze. We will, of course, later this year tackle the wider ranging reforms resulting from the review undertaken by the SSRB.
	We should end on the point that in future we must tackle the problem through an independent body. Like all the other changes that we are making, we should consult Members, but the matters should be decided by recommendations made by another body. We should not have to decide such things for ourselves.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That, with effect from 1 October 2009, the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders:
	 A. SELECT COMMITTEES RELATED TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
	(1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows
	(a) leave out items 1 and 11; and
	(b) insert, in the appropriate places, the following items:
	
		
			 Business, Innovation and Skills Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 11 
			 Science and Technology Government Office for Science 14 
		
	
	 B. RELATED PROVISIONS
	(2) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees in this Parliament in respect of the Business and Enterprise Committee and of the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee shall be deemed to have been in respect of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Science and Technology Committee, respectively.
	(3) That for the purposes of Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairmen of select committees) the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Science and Technology Committee shall be deemed to be the same committees as the Business and Enterprise and Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, respectively.
	 C. LIAISON COMMITTEE
	(4) That the Resolution of the House of 13 July 2005 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be further amended by leaving out, in paragraph (2), 'Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform' and 'Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills' and inserting, in the appropriate places, 'Business, Innovation and Skills' and 'Science and Technology'.
	 D. EUROPEAN COMMITTEES
	(5) That Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended, by leaving out in the Table in paragraph (6) in respect of European Standing Committee C, 'Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform' and 'Innovation, Universities and Skills' and inserting 'Business, Innovation and Skills'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We come to motion 5

Steve Webb: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have clearly not understood the rules. Will I be able to move amendment (a) formally?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes.

parliamentary pensions

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House endorses a package of changes to the Parliamentary pension scheme, backdated to 1 April 2009, which is judged by the Government Actuary to make savings equivalent to 2.9 per cent. of payroll, thus capping the Exchequer contribution at 28.7 per cent., consisting of
	(1) an increase in member contribution rates
	(a) from 10 to 11.9 per cent. for a pension building up to an accrual rate of 1/40th of final salary for each year of service,
	(b) from 6 to 7.9 per cent. for a pension building up to an accrual rate of 1/50th, and
	(c) from 5.5 to 5.9 per cent. for a pension building up to an accrual rate of 1/60th; and
	(2) the application of the scheme's maximum pension limit of two-thirds of final salary to all scheme members for future service .( Barbara Keeley. )
	 Amendment made: (a) at end add
	'and calls on the Leader of the House to bring forward further proposals which will cap the Exchequer contribution for 200910 at its 200809 level.' (Steve Webb.)
	 Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is growing anger concerning motion 9, which we will shortly reach, because it seeks to require the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Grand Committee to meet in Barnsley. Many Opposition Members feel that it should meet in Bridlington [Interruption.] I am supported in that view by my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart). Will you confirm that under the provision of Standing Order 117A, it is not possible to debate the motion, or the motions that come before it, because of the terms of the Standing Order, even though we have not yet reached the moment of interruption? Because of that, is it not the case that the only way in which my hon. Friends and I can show our displeasure at the motions is by dividing the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I can confirm what the right hon. Gentleman says. There can be no debate, but when that motion is reached on the Order Paper, he may well divide the House if he wishes.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you, from the Chair, advise the House whether this is a good issue to refer to the Procedure Committee? It seems that Back-Bench Members will be totally out of the loop in discussions on the time and place where the Regional Committeeswill meet.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is in a position to make that referral to the Procedure Committee himself.

David Heath: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by right hon. and hon. Members. Given that we were given no notice of the motions beyond the fact that they would be on the Order Paper today, is there any way for the Chair to consider manuscript amendments, or will we have no debate and no amendments?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that it is not possible for that to be done today.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that it is only 4.15 pm and the Minister is present, is it not possible for her to explain to us why the meeting of the North West Regional Grand Committee must take place when Parliament has reassembled, but other Regional Grand Committees are to meet when it is in recess? Some Committees are meeting at the same time as both the Liberal Democrat and the Conservative party conferences, yet none are meeting at the same time as the Labour party conference. Can the Minister not stand up and explain those facts to the House?

Hon. Members: Answer!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The occupant of the Chair is about to give an answer.
	Given the way in which the motions have been tabled, there is no possibility of debate, merely a possibility of votes. I repeat what I have already said: if Members so choose, the House can divide on these issues.

Business without Debate
	  
	south west regional grand committee

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.117A(3)),
	That the South West Regional Grand Committee shall meet in Exeter on Thursday 3 September between 10.30 am and 1.00 pm to take questions under Standing Order No. 117B (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) and to hold a general debate on the response to the economic downturn: tackling unemployment. [Mark Tami.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 105.

Question accordingly agreed to.

east midlands regional grand committee

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.117A(3)),
	That the East Midlands Regional Grand Committee shall meet in Nottingham on Wednesday 9 September between 1.00 pm and 3.30 pm to take questions under Standing Order No. 117B (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) and to hold a general debate on Building Britain's Future: how the region will make the most of the upturn. (Kerry McCarthy.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 104.

Question accordingly negatived.

south east regional grand committee

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.117A(3)) ,
	That the South East Regional Grand Committee shall meet in Reading on Monday 14 September between 10.30 am and 1.00 pm to take questions under Standing Order No. 117B (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) and to hold a general debate on identifying the growth sectors of the South East Economy and ensuring that their growth is maximised. (Kerry McCarthy.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 105.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The purpose of these motions is to provide for a uniform situation across England in which Regional Grand Committees are allowed to meet at certain appointed times. Following the Government's recent defeat, it appears that that policy is in complete disarray, and we now have inequity across England. Is it in your power to ask the Leader of the House to make a statementhopefully, one in which she announces that she intends to withdraw all the motions and go back to the drawing board?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that no such power is vested in the Chair. We must proceed with the business on the Order Paper. If the next motion is moved, the House will come to a decision.

Yorkshire and humber regional grand committee

Motion made, and  Question  put forthwith (Standing Order No. 117A(3)),
	That the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Grand Committee shall meet in Barnsley on Thursday 29 October between 3.00 pm and 5.30 pm to take questions under Standing Order No. 117B (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) and to hold a general debate on responding to the downturn and planning the region's future economy. (Kerry McCarthy.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 110.

Question accordingly agreed to.

East of England Regional Grand Committee

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.117A(3)),
	That the East of England Regional Grand Committee shall meet in Bedford on Tuesday 8 September between 2.00 pm and 5.30 pm to take questions under Standing Order No. 117B (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) and to hold a general debate on priorities for a future regional strategy. (Kerry McCarthy.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 105.

Question accordingly agreed to.

NORTH WEST REGIONAL GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.117A(3)),
	That the North West Regional Grand Committee shall meet in Liverpool on Thursday 22 October between 2.00 pm and 5.30 pm to take questions under Standing Order No. 117B (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) and to hold a general debate on Building Britain's Future: the North West's response to the economic downturn. (Mr. Watts . )
	 The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 105.

Question accordingly agreed to.

NORTH eaST REGIONAL GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.117A(3)),
	That the North East Regional Grand Committee shall meet in Middlesbrough on Friday 25 September between 10.30 am and 1.30 pm to take questions under Standing Order No. 117B (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) and to hold a general debate on the regional economy: tackling the recession. (Mr. Watts . )
	 The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 100.

Question accordingly agreed to.

West midlands regional grand committee

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.117A(3)) ,
	That the West Midlands Regional Grand Committee shall meet in Sandwell on Thursday 8 October between 6.30 pm and 9.00 pm to take questions under Standing Order No. 117B (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) and to hold a general debate on the economy: building the West Midlands' future. ( Mr. Watts.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 99.

Question accordingly agreed to.

PETITION
	  
	School Transport (Hertfordshire)

Michael Penning: It is a great pleasure to present the following petition on behalf of the residents of the beautiful village of Little Gaddesden in my constituency concerning the school bus service from Little Gaddesden to Tring.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Little Gaddesden, Hertfordshire, and others,
	Declares that residents of the village are deeply unsatisfied with the current allocation of free school transport from the village of Little Gaddesden to Tring school; further declares that the treatment of children living in the Little Gaddesden pupil catchment area for Tring school is unfair and divisive.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to rectify the situation and provide free school transport for all pupils regardless of the location of their home within the village
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000383]

TRADITIONAL CRAFTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. (Mr. Watts.)

Tom Levitt: I know that Members are anxious to get away and enjoy the lovely evening, so I will not delay us any longer than necessary. However, I do believe that traditional crafts in this country have had very little air time, so to speak, on the Floor of the House, and I would like to try to put that right.
	Outside the workshop of Mike Turnock, who lives in Whaley Bridge in my constituency, there is a shelter that is evidently home to a community of toads. That is not the purpose of the shelter, however. It is also where Mike keeps his pieces of 5 ft long, 4-by-4 beech woodthe raw material for his family business, which he inherited from his father. Mike takes the beech and, using a band saw, cuts it into strips of about 5 mm thick. He chamfers each end of the strip and places it into a steam bath. This homemade device, powered by the electric elements from four kettles, makes the beech supple and mouldable. Once the beech has been steamed and dried, he bends it around a jig built to his exact requirements so that the ends of the strip overlap significantly. The ends are then nailed into position in an adept and professional manner, using nails of exactly the right length, and the base of a garden sieve or riddle has been created. He then drills the requisite number of holes around the entire perimeter of the riddle, half in a horizontal plane and half perpendicular. These are the basis for the weaving of the sieve itself from steel wire. By the time the web has been created, assisted again by custom-made tools, everything has been finished off safely with no projecting ends and a rim has been placed around the outside of the sieve, it has taken him an hour's work.
	What Mike has created is a common or garden soil sieve, the like of which may be found in garden centres up and down the country. These are beautiful objects: they are rugged, good to hold, efficient and long lasting, and just so much nicer than the plastic equivalents that so many gardeners use today. In his father's day there would have been three or four men working in this workshop, and two or three similar workshops not too far away, but not today.
	The garden sieve is not the only type of sieve that Mike Turnock makes. He makes larger ones and smaller ones, ones with larger meshes and with finer meshes, and ones designed for separating cockles or shrimps from seawater or even rivets from sand in the Sheffield casting industry. The finest grade sieves are actually easier to make because the smaller mesh is bought in ready made from China. The finest food grade sieves also have their own demands from industry.
	I must declare an interest: my mother is now the proud owner of a garden sieve that Mike gave to me on the occasion of my visit to his workshop. Hon. Members may purchase their own from certain garden centres, although the supply is far less than potential demand, as Mike is the only person left in the country making these handmade sieves as far as I know. He only supplies garden centres in two regions of England.
	When Mike took on the business from his father, it was a going concern. It still is today: he is making a living and evidently loving it. After a few lean years caused by illness, he is now back in full production again. But Mike is 64. He and his wife are now looking to retirement and there is no one left to carry on this business, despite the potential that exists for increasing sales.
	The same is true just down the road in Sheffield at the last handmade scissor makers in the country. Other craft skills are in equally short supply, which is ironic at a time when premium products such as these can sell on the basis of their quality and command a good price. Perhaps fortunes cannot be made, but livings certainly could be made from an expansion of these industries.
	Indeed, figures produced by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport actually support what I am saying: there are 157,400 registered creative businesses in this country, and they have growth rates faster than the economy as a whole. The Crafts Council recently launched its Crafts Blueprint for creative industries, and said:
	New research undertaken by Creative  Cultural Skills has identified that craft generates almost 3 billion to the UK economy each year making it the fourth biggest sector
	within the creative industries
	after design, performing arts and music...Given that over 80% of the sector comprises small businesses employing 1-5 people, improving skills is essential to ensure this growth continues in the coming years.
	It went on:
	The craft sector has one of the highest employment growth rates (11 per cent.) in the creative and cultural industries (according to DCMS between the years 1997-2006) and the demand for craft skills has never been higher. Expanding entry routes into the sector, diversifying the workforce and enhancing leadership and professional development are some of the main recommendations in the Blueprint.
	In the same press release, Rosy Greenlees, executive director of the Crafts Council, said:
	The Crafts Council is committed to making the UK the best place to make, see and collect contemporary craft.
	Why did she refer to contemporary craft? It would be wrong to exclude the traditional crafts that organisations such as the Heritage Crafts Association seek to conserve. The craftspeople concerned include the sieve maker, the rake maker, the handmade cutlery maker and others. They do not necessarily make objects of beauty or of stunning magnificence, which seems to be the focus of the craft-based media, but functional, traditional objects that require just as much skill to make as well as requiring a true sense of heritage and basic human purpose. The arts media and crafts media seem fixated on the idea of arts and crafts, and on linking the two together. I want to make the distinction. I have nothing against artsnot at allbut they should not subsume the crafts in that definition.
	The Heritage Crafts Association was set up by, among others, my constituent Robin Wood, a pole-lathe bowl turner. The organisation believes that recognising the living heritage of skills offers great opportunities for education, community involvement and jobs and can even play a significant role in the tourism industry. However, what do the Craft Council and DCMS mean by the creative industries? Generally speaking, they mean the arts, the media and culture. They mean the conservation of buildings, artefacts and historical traditions. They even includeI very much welcome thistraditional skills related to the building trade, such as the production of lime mortar, stone roofing, thatching and stone walling. The National Trust, English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund have even created apprenticeships to ensure that those skills are retained so that their precious buildings can be conserved. I do not use the word precious pejoratively. They are precious buildings, and those skills need to be preserved to ensure that such buildings can be maintained in the best possible condition. However, it is the other craftsthose that deal with useful tools that man has evolved over 1,000 yearsthat I am interested in today.
	Outside the field of construction, support for such crafts is not what it could be, which is why people such as Mike Turnock cannot find the funding to take on an apprentice or someone to learn the trade and work with him long enough to take over his potentially flourishing business and expand it in the future, retaining his wonderful craftsmanship in our community.
	We all know someone called Smith, Turner, Potter, Fletcher, Barker, Cartwright or even Thatcher. Those were the names originally given to those people who founded the crafts heritage in this country. In 2006 the UNESCO convention stated:
	Any efforts to safeguard traditional craftsmanship must focus not on preserving craft objectsno matter how beautiful, precious, rare or important they might bebut on creating conditions that will encourage artisans to continue to produce crafts of all kinds, and to transmit their skills and knowledge to others, especially younger members of their communities.
	The goal of the UNESCO convention is to safeguard traditional craftsmanship by supporting the continuing transmission of knowledge and skills associated with traditional artisans, to ensure that crafts continue to be practised in their communities, providing livelihoods to their makers and reflecting creativity and adaptation. May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister why, when 107 countries from Albania and Algeria through to Zambia and Zimbabwe have seen fit to sign up to the convention, effectively making intangible cultural heritage part of their cultural policy, the UK is not one of those countries?
	I want to turn for a moment to the Heritage Lottery Fund. It recently announced that 10 projects would benefit from a 7 million training bursary scheme. The projects involve archaeology, transport heritage, conservation volunteers, reed and sedge cutting and other schemes to help conserve things that are already there. It is very difficult to find examples of Government or lottery funding being used to create things from scratch or regenerate the skills that, like sieve making, are in danger of being lost.
	In High Peak, I have not only that last sieve maker but Robin Wood, who tells me that he is the last professional pole-lathe bowl turner in the country. Both crafts have been established for more than 1,000 years, but it is difficult to see how they will survive even one more generation. The Crafts Council has recognised this problem, and I have referred already to the blueprint that it produced with Creative and Cultural Skills, which was launched recently in the other place. In it, the council points out that many of the craftspeople involved in cottage industries are elderly and without successors to whom they can pass on their skills. In addition, many are sole traders, with little incentive to take on an apprentice without external funding.
	Many of these traditional skills are often referred to as rural, but in fact they are urban as well. An example of that is the scissor makers of Sheffield, to whom I have referred and on whose behalf my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has campaigned.
	It seems that only once these crafts are dead do they come under the remit of the heritage industry, as their products find their ways into museum displays and people take pride in their conservation and celebrate their memory. Why can we not give the same attention to the ailing small industries that create these iconic objects? Are not the skills as worthy of conservation as the products that they create? We assess the relative importance of protecting, preserving and finding new life for older buildings that we see as part of our heritage: why should we not take a similar approach to heritage craft skills, and allocate a budget to do so?
	I know that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has rightly welcomed the Government's announcement of the 1.1 billion future jobs fund, and the positive impact it will have in the field. I know that, among other things, the fund will pay for 5,000 apprenticeships in the creative industries. I know that the wider creative industries are a huge sourceand potential future sourceof income for this country, as well as generators of employment. I also know that helping a single-person business to keep going from one generation to the next is not the sexiest part of the DCMS agenda, but it is vital.
	Making garden sieves is not going to bring this country out of recession, but it is a part of our tradition and it ought to have a future. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us exactly how she will support the forgotten parts of the world of creative industries in the future.
	The responsibilities of DCMS include sport as well as culture, and I am sure that the Minister will not need to ask the Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), about where some of the nicknames that we give to our football clubs have come from. However, let me remind her of the Blades in Sheffield, the Cobblers in Northampton, the Saddlers in Walsall, the Hatters in Luton and the Silkmen just across the hills from me in Macclesfield.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take up the spirit of the UNESCO convention that I mentioned. I ask her to put on record not whether she will be backing to the hilt these small businesses in the creative field, but how she will do so.

Barbara Follett: First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) on securing this debate about one of Britain's lesser known but still extremely important craft skills? As some hon. Members may know, no serious gardener, anxious to keep his or her soil in good tilth, would be without a good quality riddleand, as my hon. Friend has made clear, should they be in need of one, his constituent Michael Turnock is just the man to supply it.
	Mr. Turnock and his one-man riddle-making business in Whaley Bridge are well known locally for their high-quality products. His skills have also attracted national interest, and that makes it all the more sad and surprising that, so far, Mr. Turnock has failed to find anyone who wants to take over his business, despite the efforts of Mr. Robin Wood, who has done a great deal to popularise crafts and to make everyone, including the Government, aware of their situation.
	However, Mr. Turnock's story is, unfortunately, all too familiar. Mechanisation and new materials have taken over the labour-intensive and time-consuming processes required to make one particular type of tool by hand. In fact, estimates made in 2004 suggested that, along with Mr. Turnock's, only six businesses in England still make that sort of craft productthree horse collar makers, two besom broom producers and one oak spale basket maker. I think that my hon. Friend mentioned another maker, and I shall get that product from him after the debate.
	The picture is not much brighter even among better known crafts such as thatching, saddling or timber framing, where the number of people employed totals little more than 1,000. If as Mr. Turnock and others insist, craft products are in high demand, all that is missing are trainees or apprentices willing to take up placements in craft-based firms
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)),
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.( Mr. Watts.)

Barbara Follett: My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak outlined some of the Government schemes to help single-person businesses, such as Mr. Turnock's, to attract and keep apprentices. For onceunusuallyfunding is not the problem. There is funding around, and there are a lot of courses; what we lack are people of any age who want to take up placements or apprenticeships in craft firms such as the one Mr. Turnock runs.
	There are obviously many reasons for that situation. Sometimes, it is down to young people not being able to see a clear career path. Sometimes, it is because a person does not want to be a sole trader, or part of a small business. Sometimes, it is because younger people want to experience the bright lights of the cities, and craft trades tend to be in rural areas. Sometimes, it is just because people do not know that the opportunities and jobs exist, which is one of the areas where the Government can helplocally, regionally and centrally.
	Overall, not many craftspeople have the time, or even the finance, to advertise what they do and to attract apprentices. It is a Catch-22 situation. Both the Government and the sector are very aware of the problems. This month, Creative and Cultural Skills published a crafts blueprint, to accompany and amplify the cultural heritage blueprint, which is a work force development plan designed to improve participation in the traditional skills sector. The success of recent television shows such as Victorian Farm, as well as the 20-year waiting list for allotments in some areas, indicate real popular interest in sustainable traditional practices, which could lead to an appreciation of the time and care taken to produce quality hand-made items such as Mr. Turnock's riddles.
	The UK is blessed with an extraordinarily wide variety of traditions and crafts. Coupled with increasing awareness of the economic, social and environmental impact of our current life styles on the health of our planet, there has been a resurgence of interest in traditional crafts and practices. We are seeing a revival of traditional crafts such as carpentry, knitting, crocheting, quilting and tatting, as well as an increase in the number of craft magazines and programmes. New technology makes some crafts easier and opens up a new and much wider market for quality hand-made products made by people such as Mr. Turnock.
	The Crafts Council supports Mr. Turnock's work, and the work of all the other people in the sector. The council organises events to showcase crafts. English Heritage helps to fund the very popular heritage open days and festivals of archaeology, which as well as opening up buildings to the public also promote traditional crafts and activities.
	Crafts, as a skill, fall under several central Government Departments. The Department for Communities and Local Government is very keen on them because it believes that maintaining traditional skills in a community helps to define and shape local identity. It knows that a shortage of skilled people can hold up planning applications for historical buildings. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment published its Skills to grow report in partnership with 15 national bodies, including Lantra, which is the sector skills council for the land-based sector that focuses on horticultural green-space skills.
	The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is responsible for sector skills councils such as CABE. It provides a great deal of support for small businesses that are involved in craft areas. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and its agencies, Natural England and the Forestry Commission, are supporting traditional skills through their rural development programme. My Department, through its non-departmental public bodies and the lottery, shares those common interests and backs the projects. For example, the Heritage Lottery Fund has awarded more than 446 million to 1,300 projects that have delivered heritage skills training in not only blacksmithing, textiles and paper conservation, but traditional building skills, such as using lime mortar and dry-stone walling. Its 7 million bursary programme for on-the-job training in 10 areas in which it has found evidence of a shortage of crafts has helped to train new masons, hedge layers and millwrights.
	My hon. Friend will be aware that English Heritage published the second Heritage at Risk report yesterday. Its finding confirmed the need for such skills locally and regionally. That is why English Heritage has been working with ConstructionSkills and the national heritage training group to address some of the shortages in traditional building craft skills. It is also why it has just signed a memorandum of understanding with the all-party arts and heritage group on maintaining standards and best practice in the built heritage sector.
	I am glad that Arts Council England is also involved. It will spend more than 6 million this year alone on organisations involved in contemporary or heritage crafts, including by giving funding of 2.8 million to the Crafts Council to lead on contemporary crafts.
	My hon. Friend talked about an international convention on crafts. I believe that he was referring to the 2003 convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. The Government have no plans to ratify the convention, but we are supportive of its aims and spirit. We are keen that the rich intangible cultural heritage of the United Kingdom is properly valued and, when necessary, preserved. However, we are wary of legislating on such a sensitive matter as culture, especially in an area such as intangible heritage which, by its very nature, is difficult to define. Ratifying the convention and setting out strict definitions of what our intangible cultural heritage is, and might be, could be constricting and controversial. For example, there are issues surrounding languages and dialects in the devolved Administrations and in Cornwall.
	Whether tangible or intangible, however, our heritage is a marvellous asset that we want to protect and nurture. As a Regional Minister, I see a role for the regional development agencies and local authorities. They need to play their part, along with central Government and non-departmental bodies, in ensuring that our traditional skills are upheld and preserved.
	We do not want to preserve things for their own sake; we want to preserve them because of what they add to our country and to what it has to offer. As Minister with responsibility for tourism, I know how much that offer is worth to our economy every year. I also know how important it is to get people involved. My hon. Friend may or may not have heard of the recent phenomenon of yarn bombing: think Banksy meets the women's institute. It is guerrilla knitting in the public realm. Its legality is still uncertain, but its creativity is not. It is a wonderful example of a centuries-old tradition being made relevant for today. I hope that we can offer an opportunity to uphold the heritage that men such as Mr. Turnock have preserved for us, and can make that heritage relevant and accessible to everybody.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.